Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHER MUHAMMAD VS Respondent: DEPUTY COMMISSIONERHonorable Justice Afrasiab KhanHidayat Ullah
1988 C L C 1771
1988 C L C 1771
[Lahore]
Before Afrasiab Khan, J
SHER MUHAMMAD‑‑Petitioner versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER and others‑‑Respondents
Writ Petition No.5804 of 1986, decided on 18th January, 1988.
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑
‑‑S.10‑‑Lease of Government land‑‑Rights of lessee‑‑Government land was leased out to petitioner through auction and petitioner paid entire auction price and also deposited rent thereof‑‑Auction of land in question was confirmed by respondent Authority in favour of petitioner‑‑Authority, however, in spite of confirmation of auction in favour of petitioner not putting him in possession of such land contending that land in question had been built upon and was in unauthorised possession of 79 families consisting of 745 persons, therefore, it was not possible to get vacant possession from those people and to hand it over to petitioner/lessee‑‑On statement made in Court on behalf of respondent Authority to the effect that some, alternative land could be leased out to petitioner, under similar conditions, petitioner was satisfied‑‑High Court disposed of Constitutional petition with observation that some alternative land be allotted to petitioner under similar terms and conditions.
Hidayat Ullah for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 18th January, 1988.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, Sher Muhammad, has moved this Constitutional petition praying therein that the order dated 20-10-1956 passed' by the respondent dismissing the petitioner's plea for, being, put in possession of the lease land may be declared without ‑lawful authority and of no legal consequence.
2. The parties are present and have been heard. A representative of the respondent with record of the case is also‑ present. Learned counsel contended that the land in question was auctioned and was purchased by the petitioner. He paid the entire auction price and ultimately the auction of the land in question was confirmed by respondent in favour of the petitioner as far back as 20‑7‑1'981. The rent was also deposited by the petitioner. However' despite the fact that the petitioner was the purchaser of the land in question the same was not given to him even after the expiry of a considerable periods. The representative of the respondent took the plea that the land in question is in unauthorized possession of 79 families consisting of 745 persons. It is stated that the land in question has been built upon and, therefore, it is not possible for the respondent to get vacant possession of the same from these people and to hand it over to the petitioner. Be that as it may, it is conceded by the respondent that the land in question was auctioned in favour of the petitioner and auction price was deposited and the auction was duly confirmed. It is also conceded that the rent has been paid by the petitioner to the respondent regarding the land in question. The representative of the respondent has made a statement that some alternate land can be leased out to the petitioner under the similar conditions. Learned counsel for the petitioner is satisfied with the statement of the representative of the respondent. Let some alternate land be allotted to the petitioner under the similar terms and conditions. With this observation this petition is disposed of.
H.B.T./S‑236/L Order accordingly