1989 PLP 978 (MLD)

Syed Qurban Ali Gilani for Petitioner. Najamuz Zaman A.A.‑G. with Muhammad Ismail for Respondent. Qamarud Din Khan Meo for Respondent No.5. Date of hearing: 15th November, 1988. The dispute in this Constitutional petition pertains to the allotment of village shop site, situated in Chak No.2/1‑AL, Tehsil and District Okara. The disputed shop site was allotted to one Ibrahim, who it is asserted handed over the possession to the petitioners. Ibrahim, aforesaid allottee surrendered the shop site to the authorities by submitting an application on 4‑9‑1974 seeking cancellation of the allotment as he was not interested in running the business in the shop site. The allotment in favour of Ibrahim was accordingly cancelled the same day. Abdul Jabbar respondent on 11‑2‑1980 submitted an application for allotment of the shop site in question saying that he is running the shop in a portion of his residential house which is nether suitable nor sufficient for his needs. On this application proceedings were held, reports of the revenue officials were obtained and the site in question was allotted to Abdul Jabbar, respondent by the Colony Assistant/Collector vide order dated 10‑11‑1980. The petitioners challenged the said allotment order by filing an appeal but the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) vide order dated 27‑5‑1986. The revision petition filed by the petitioners also failed vide order dated 29‑10‑1986 of the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. This led to the filing of the present Constitutional petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the petition argued that neither proper proceedings were held nor the petitioners were heard before allotting the shop site in question to the respondent; that the petitioners being in possession of site in question were entitled to receive allotment of the same and that the respondent is not entitled to seek the allotment of the shop site as he has also inherited land from his father.

3. In the parawise comments submitted by the official respondents, the position taken is that the petitioners were ineligible to seek allotment of the shop site while Abdul Jabbar being a landless tenant was rightly allotted the Ihata in question. The finding of fact recorded by the learned Member, Board of Revenue is that the record does not show the petitioners to be in possession of Ihata in question at the time of its allotment and that the allotments of Ihatas were stopped for a few months only; the petitioners could have applied for the allotment at any time between 1972 and 1980 when it was got allotted by the respondent. With regard to this finding, reference was made to Parwana Mushtri Mandi (Annexure D/1), statement of land‑owners (Annexure D/2) and statement of Abdul Jabbar (Annexure D/3) wherein Ihata in question has been admitted to be in unauthorised possession of the petitioners. The petitioners have however not been able to show that they had submitted an application for allotment of the site in question before the date of order of allotment. Even otherwise, the petitioners being land owners cannot seek allotment of the shop site. The shop site can only be allotted, as per statement of conditions, to the persons other than agriculturists. The petitioners are admittedly agriculturists and are cultivating the land owned by them. As against this, the respondent in application submitted that he is running a shop in the portion of his residential house and he will continue to run the business. At the time of allotment, admittedly the respondent neither was cultivating any land nor he was owner of any land though on the death of his father he has inherited land alongwith his other brothers but that was admittedly much after the date of allotment.

4. Be that as it may, choice of the suitable tenant is to be made by the competent authority. The petitioners being agriculturists are ineligible to seek allotment of shop site. The mere fact that they are in unauthorised possession fails to furnish them any right to seek allotment. As none of the vested rights of the petitioners has been denied, interference in exercise of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction is not called for. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own cost. H.B.T./1‑107/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.