' GHULAM RABBANI, J. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are agriculturists/Haris since their ancestors residing on some parts of agricultural land comprising 148 acres of land of Kohistan, District Thatta. The said land has been auctioned at Rs,20,100 per acre as against Government rate of Rs,20,000 per acre by respondent No,2. It is alleged by the petitioners that they could not participate in the proceedings of aforesaid auction, being simpleton, illiterate, and village people and also for the reason that the auction proceedings were held by the respondent No,2 at Karachi, which has never been visited by them. According to the petitioners, venue at auction of Karachi was intentionally fixed instead of Thatta in violation of Government policy to deprive the petitioners from participating in the said auction proceedings. They submit that they learnt about the auction proceedings only a day before filing of this Constitutional petition.
2. It is further the case of petitioners that they have their crops standing on this disputed land and they fear that they will be deprived of the same and shall ultimately, be evicted. They have prayed that the auction proceedings be set aside and orders be passed for arranging fresh auction proceedings near the disputed land with further directions to respondents Nos.1 and 2 not to evict the petitioners.
3. Respondents have furnished their written replies. The Deputy Commissioner, respondent No, 1, has stated that the petitioners are in cultivating possession of only 88 acres of the Farm land in capacity of Hari but there is no entry in their record as to their said status.
4. Respondent No,2 has stated that the petitioners are not permanent Harts and standing crops is property of the Farm. Disputed land alongwith other huge lands were disposed of to higher bidders in open auction at public place namely Baradari (Old Polo Ground) at Karachi from 1st to 9th September, 1998 as per schedule published in Newspapers like Jang, Ibrat, Kawish and many others and in a Brochure. The proceedings were given coverage by National Press so also the same were recorded through video and audio mode to avoid any controversy. It is averred that the proceedings were conducted by respondent, Privatization Committee constituted by Sindh Government in pursuance of direction of Prime Minister for identification and disposal of the State land, and no violation of any of the principles of policy was made. Nobody was restrained from participating in these proceedings. The bids received have been confirmed by the respondent No,2 and also by the Chief Minister. It is asserted that the petitioners are not going to be ejected by the auction-purchaser if they are tenants except under tenancy laws but, it is alleged that the petitioners being tenants have no right to maintain this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, during the course of arguments, challenged the auction proceedings on the basis that Agricultural Department was not the owner of the land in question nor the respondent, Privatization Committee had a right to dispose of the said land. He, however, admitted that disputed land belongs to State. Learned Advocate-General and learned counsel for respondent No,2 emphasized that said auction proceedings took place in legal form and lawful manner and that no principle of policy was violated.
6. Petitioners in this petition have challenged the auction proceedings disputing its manner and mode as also the place of holding these proceedings and have asked for re-auction of disputed land. Their counsel has, however, introduced a. New plea traversing beyond the averments of this Constitutional petition, which cannot be permitted at this stage. No legal point has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners have made prayer to upset auction proceedings without impleading auction purchaser. It seems, that they have come with unclean hands. Under these circumstances, this petition is not maintainable.
7. By a short order, dated 13-4-1999, we had dismissed this petition in limine alongwith listed application i,e, Miscellaneous No,5431 of 1997 and these are reasons for the same.