P L D 1958 (W (PLP)

Sardar Zafarullah for Petitioner Date of hearing : 16th July 1958. The petitioner was allotted some Government land by the Colony Assistant of Lyallpur and on the 5th of April 1957 the latter issued a robkar, Annexure B', to the Tahsildar for 'Putting the petitioner into possession. A copy from the register relating to Grow More Food Scheme, Annexure `C' has been produced which shows that the entry therein in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on the 14th of April 1958. The petitioner alleges that he had become a tenant of the land within the meaning of sub section (4) of section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act (V of 1912) and that the order of the respondent can celling the lease in his favour without any notice to him and with out there being any ground for its cancellation as laid down under section 24 of the Act, was illegal and unjust. A copy of the order of the respondent cancelling the alleged lease has not been produced. The entry in Annexure `C' is obviously not sufficient because the petitioner himself alleges in paragraph 5 of his petition that he came to know on the 8th of April 1958 that tenders for the land in question had been called for by the respondent and that a tender of the respondent No. 2 was accepted on the 10th of April 1958 ; but the entry in Annexure `C' shows that the entry in the name of the petitioner was cancelled on the 14th of April. The original order against the petitioner, therefore, must have been passed, before the 8th of April. In the absence of that order it is impossible to say on what ground or grounds the alleged lease or the entry in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the first respondent and unless those grounds are known it is impossible for this Court to decide about the justness or otherwise of the petitioner's complaint. There is no allegation in the affidavit that the petitioner made an application for a copy of that order and it was refused. Learned counsel has laid great stress upon an endorsement by the Patwari on the back of Annexure `A' and has, while this order was being dictated, now produced before me a copy of Khasra Girdawri for Chak No.

279. The Patwari's endorsement thereon, dated the 24th of August 1957, shows that on that date the petitioner produced Annexure `A' dasti before him and stated that he had taken possession of the land and that after a local inspection an entry had been made in the roznamcha. It concludes: "Therefore, after compliance the report is submitted", Mr. Zafrullah, after consulting his client, stated that this is the original document. Neither he, nor his client, has been able to explain as to how his client is in possession of this document. It was intended for the official record on which it should have been brought. As regards the copy of the Khasra Girdawari, learned counsel was unable even with the help of his client to read the entries therein. He, however, relied upon an entry in red ink showing that "No. 46" is under the cultivation of the petitioner. It is not possible to say whether this document relates to the land in suit or whether it supports the petitioner's allegations in any other respect. In this state of affairs it is impossible for this Court to arrive even at a tentative conclusion that some wrong or illegality has been committed by the first respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has requested me to call for a report from the first respondent. I see no justification for doing so. Petitioners applying under Article 170 of the Constitution must come to this Court with a clear case supported by all available documentary evidence and appropriate affidavits. They cannot be permitted to use the process of this Court for fishing out a case for themselves, either through reports from the Government Departments or otherwise. Submission of reports, on writ petitions, by Govern ment Departments entail very heavy work for the Departments which, in all likelihood, are already overworked. A report is called by this Court not to fill up lacunae in a petitioner's case ; but only by way of a concession to the Government Departments so that if they have a sufficient answer to the petition, which on the face of it makes out a strong case in favour of the petitioner, they may not be put to the further trouble and expenditure of prosecuting the case. I see no reason either to call for a report from, or to issue notice to, the respondent in the particular circumstances of this case. The petition is hereby dismissed. K. E. A. Petition dismissed.