' Through this single judgment, the Writ Petitions Nos.15690 of 1995, Writ Petition No,17064 of 1995, Writ Petition No,17065 of 1995 and Writ Petition No,16458 shall be disposed of as common question of facts and law are involved,
2. Writ Petition No, 15690 of 1995 was filed by the petitioners in this Court on 6-11-1995, it was filed against respondents Nos.1 to 4. It was stated in the writ petition that the petitioner No,1 is in possession of the land described in para. 2 of the petition since 1973-74 as a lessee while the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are so in possession of the land mentioned in para.
3. The reference was made to Revenue Record, copies whereof are Annexures A to H. It was then stated that the land was leased out to the petitioners in auctions that were held in 1974, 1982 and 1987. It was then abruptly stated that the auctioned land has been cancelled by the Government. It was further stated that the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have installed two tube wells in the lots and have made it culturable, It was then stated that respondents Nos.2 and 3 in collusion with respondent No,4 have obtained land on lease which is Benami transaction and tried to take possession with the police alongwith some other persons on 2-11-1995. The petitioners described themselves as poor "Kisans" and stated that Patwari is not releasing the information under the threat of the said Officers. It was then sated that no auction took place to the notice or information of the petitioners. With these averments it was prayed that "impugned orders" passed by the said respondents be declared to be illegal and void and be set aside. In the petition itself prayer was made for protecting the possession pending the writ petition. The writ petition came up before the Court on 7-11-1995. On the same date C.M. No,2 of 1995 was taken up and private respondents were impleaded as parties. In the main writ petition a direction was issued to respondent No,3 to appear before the Court alongwith the record regarding the auction, if any held on 20-11-1995. In the stay matter notice was issued to the respondents for 20-11-1995 and possession of the petitioners was directed not to be disturbed. On 20-11-1995 following order was passed:- "Syed Seerat Hussain Naqvi, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondent No,3 in person.
' Respondent No,3 requests for two days' adjournment. To come up on 22-11-1995."
' On 22-11-1995 the following order was passed:--- "Petitioner with Mr. Seerat Hussain Naqvi, Advocate. Respondent No,3 in person.
' Mr. Masood Sadiq. Advocate for respondents Nos. 5 to 8.
' Let respondent No,3 submit his report and parawise comments to this petition within 10 days.
' To come up on 5-12-1995. In the meanwhile, the interim order passed by this Court on 7-11-1995 shall remain in force."
3. On 27-11-1995 Writ Petition No,17064 of 1995 and Writ Petition No,17065 of 1995 were filed in this Court by the private respondents in Writ Petition No, 16458 of 1995.
4. It was stated in Writ Petition No,17064 of 1995 that the petitioners are owners of less than 4 Acre land; that on 10-7-1995, the State land mentioned in auction statements Annexure-I/1,2,3 and 4, was put to auction and they made the highest bids for said four lots; that the auction was approved on 5-10-1995 by Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura who issued the allotment orders; that on 2-11-1995 the actual physical possession of the land was delivered by respondent to the said petitioners. The factum of delivery of possession was duly recorded in Roznamcha Waqiati.
The standing crop was paid for and was cut and taken away with the permission of the competent authority; that on 6-11-1995, respondent Muhammad Hussain who is not a cultivator but a practising lawyer of Lahore High Court filed Writ Petition No, 15690 of 1995 and made a wrong assertion that he was in possession of the said land and obtained a stay order, that his possession be not disturbed, when he was not in possession; that on 20-11-1995 the said writ petition was adjourned to 22-11-1995 on the request of respondent Assistant Commissioner. On the same day, on asking of said private respondents, the Assistant Commissioner passed an order, dated 20-11- 1995 Annexure-VII; that on 21-11-1995, the respondent No,2 came to the spot with a large contingent of police and started to dispossess the petitioners, on their protest they were told to seek relief from High Court as it was under the High Court orders that the possession was being taken, but no such order has ever been passed by this Court. It has been prayed that possession of the petitioners be restored.
5. Writ Petition. No, 17065 has also been filed by the said respondents in Writ Petition No, 15690 and six others. After referring to the said facts, it has been stated that a case has been registered vide F.I.R. No, 319 of 1995 under sections 379/337-H(2)/435/427/148/149, P.P.C. Against the said persons at Police Station Sharkpur Sharif on 22-11-1995 and this case has also been got registered under orders of this Court whereas there are no such orders. The prayer has been made for quashment of the said. F.I.R.
6. Writ Petition No, 16458 of 1995 was filed in this Court on 19-11-1995. This has been filed by Muhammad Yousaf one of the petitioners in the said Writ Petition No, 15690 of 1995 seeking a direction for registration of a case against the private respondents. This writ petition came up on 20-11-1995 and was ordered to be put up alongwith Writ Petition No,15690 of 1995 on 22-11-1995. On the said date, the S.H.O. Appeared and stated that no report has been made with him for registration of the case, the writ petition was disposed of with the direction that let the petitioners filed a written application before the S.H.O. Who shall proceed strictly in accordance with law.
7. Messrs Ch. Muzamal Khan and Sheikh Abdul Aziz, Advocates learned counsel for the petitioners argue that the auction had taken place in favour of the private respondents in surreptitious manners without any notice to the petitioners and auction proceedings took place at a distance of several K.Ms. From the said land and as such the petitioners could not make their bids and auction in favour of the private respondents is void. Sheikh Abdul Aziz, Advocate vehemently insisted that my learned brother who was dealing with the case on 20-11-1995 had passed an order directing the Assistant Commissioner to put the petitioners in possession of the said land and it was in compliance with the said orders that the petitioners were put in possession and that the case was registered against the private respondents and other persons. Dr. A. Basit learned counsel for the private respondents and said other persons on the other hand argues that there is no such order on the entire record of any of these proceedings and that his clients have been dispossessed illegally. Refers to the said documents appended with Writ Petition No, 17064 of 1995 to argue that lease was lawfully made in favour of his clients after an open auction, it was affirmed and possession was delivered under the same and that his clients had been delivered physical possession after removal of the crops which were paid for by his clients.
8. I have gone through the files of these cases with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. Now the entire reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is on reports filed by Assistant Commissioner, Ferozewala and the Revenue Officer. These reports were filed in this Court on 22-11-1995 under letter addressed by Assistant Commissioner to the Assistant Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. Before I refer to these reports I may state that I have checked up each and every paper of these files and there is no order passed by this Court for delivery of possession to the petitioners. When confronted learned counsel for the petitioners concede that there is no order in writing but they insisted that verbally order was passed. I do not at all believe the learned counsel. As it is not conceivable that this Court would pass an order of such nature verbally and when there is no prayer for the same. In such state of affairs I regret to state that the reports indeed make one shudder. The report by the Assistant Commissioner narrates that during the proceedings of the above mentioned writ petition on 20-11-1995 his lordship ordered that the possession of the lots in Writ Petition No, 15690 of 1995 should immediately be restored and handed over to the writ petitioners and that it was further directed that S.H.O. Shall register the case on the complaint of the petitioners and report about the compliance of these orders shall be presented by Assistant Commissioner on 22-11-1995 (1 have already reproduced the order passed on 20-11-1995) the Officer further proceeds to state that in compliance of tile orders of 20-11-1995 the Revenue Officer to the Circle who was also present in the learned Court was directed to comply with the order and report compliance before 22-11-1995. The Assistant Commissioner then states that Bashir Ahmad, Revenue Officer of the Circle has submitted a report before him stating that orders of His Lordship had been complied with and the possession has been handed over to the writ petitioners on 21-11- 1995. The Assistant Commissioner then proceeds to make the following shocking statement:- ' "The undersigned/respondent No,3 appeared before His Lordship alongwith the Revenue Officer of the Circle and intimated the compliance according to the report of the Revenue Officer. His Lordship was pleased to further direct that a written compliance report should be placed for his kind perusal. This report is hence submitted before His Lordship for kind perusal.
9. To the similar effect is the report in Vernacular of Tehsildar.
10. 1 have already referred to the order passed on 22-11-1995 above. There is no reference at all to any such report may further state here that whereas the private respondents did file a written statement to the Writ Petition No,15690 of 1995 after it was admitted to hearing on 25-2-1996 but none of the respondents have filed written statements to controvert the contents of Writ Petition No, 17064 of 1995 which was admitted to hearing on 25-2-1996 and notice was accepted by the learned A.A.-G. For the official respondent as well as by Mr. Muhammad Hussain. It may further be noted that direction was issued to file written statements within ten days.
11. To my mind the manner in which law and particularly the process of this Court has been wantonly abused by the petitioners as well as the official respondents is deplorable. The learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the officials have only complied with orders of this Court. The contention is baseless as there are no such orders on record. If such a conduct is to be permitted then all hell will break loose. All that a Police Officer or an Executive Officer would require will be to get a petition filed in this Court and thereafter file a compliance report of non-existing orders to the detriment of the citizens of the country.
12. As to the first contention of learned counsel for the petitioners suffice it will be to refer to Revenue Record being relied upon by the petitioners and annexed by them with Writ Petition No, 15690 of 1995 that the petitioners are recorded to be illegal and unauthorized occupants of the State land. Not a single document has been placed on record during the past seven years to support that the petitioners were in occupation of the land lawfully as a lessee or otherwise. On the other hand private respondents have placed documents on record to show that an auction was held and they were highest bidders and were granted lease of land from two to five years.
Therefore, I do not find any force- in the first contention of learned counsel for the petitioners.
13. In view of all that has been discussed above, Writ Petition No,15690 of 1995 and Writ Petition No,16458 of 1995 are dismissed while Writ Petition No,17064 and Writ Petition No,17065 are allowed..
The possession of the land allotted to the private respondents in Writ Petition No, 15690 of 1995 (petitioners in Writ Petition No, 17064 of 1995) shall be restored back to them by the official respondents immediately. The said respondents from the date of delivery of possession, shall be allowed to cultivate the land for a period of two years each and thereafter the land may be disposed of by the State in the manner prescribed. The said F.I.R. Is quashed. The costs of all these petitions shall be borne by the petitioners in Writ Petition No, A5690 of 1995, the counsel fee is fixed at Rs, 5,000.
14. A copy of this judgment be sent to the office of the Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore with the direction to issue a directive to all subordinate Executive Officers that whenever it is represented before them that this Court has issued directions to do or not to do an act or thing, they must always insist on a certified copy of the order in writing of the Court, unless the order is conveyed to them by the office of the Court in the manner prescribed.