2006 PLP 1634 (CLC)

MUZAFFAR ALI, J.

Through this writ petition, the petitioner has called the validity of the order, dated 20-8-2002, passed by the Revenue Commissioner, Northern Areas, Gilgit, in question. The long-standing litigation between the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 20 in various civil as well as the Revenue Courts since 1984 have arisen out of the facts that, the petitioner along with his other collaterals claimed the disputed land to be in their possession as their inherited property and prayed for perpetual injunction in the Suit No.27 of 1984, the suit was adjudicated on merits by the Civil Judge, Gilgit and held the disputed property to be consisting of three different portions out of which the middle one was declared to be owned and possessed by the plaintiffs and the remaining portions of the disputed land was declared Khalisa not possessed by any of the parties. The plaintiffs being unsatisfied from the partial decree, went up in appeal before the District Judge who decreed the suit-land in favour of the plaintiffs by accepting the appeal and the respondents including the Collector went up in second appeal before the Court of Judicial Commissioner, N.As., against the judgment/decree passed by the District Judge, Gilgit and succeeded to get the decree passed by the Civil Court to be maintained by the Court of Judicial Commissioner, N.As., but another series of civil litigation started between the parties in respect of the disputed land and ended, when the counsel for the parties agreed that the matter be decided under the Nautore rules by the Revenue Authorities, when the Appeal No.56 of 1990 was being argued before the District Judge, Gilgit and the District Judge, Gilgit disposed of the same accordingly. The third round of the litigation between the parties started before the Revenue Authorities and on 30-8-2000 the Revenue Commissioner passed an order, wherein he accepted the revision of the present petitioner and set aside the order, dated 30-4-1998, passed by the Collector and order dated 30-7-1999 passed by the Assistant Commissioner Gupis/Yasin, but did not finally dispose of the matter and directed the Tehsildar Yasin to submit a detail report in respect of the present position of the disputed land at that time within two weeks and after receiving the requisite report, the Revenue Commissioner passed the impugned order under the writ petition before this Court. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned order passed by the Revenue Commissioner is contrary to law and he has failed to exercise his jurisdiction and also failed to follow the procedure according to law. The learned counsel further termed the impugned order to be void ab initio and illegal and in his opinion the order, dated 30-8-2000, passed by Revenue Commissioner was final in nature as such, the impugned order is ultra wires. He claims his possession and improvements over the disputed land. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents termed the rider points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to be unfounded and urged that, the impugned order has been passed in compliance with the judgment passed by the Court of Judicial Commissioner and the Court was then the apex Court of Civil jurisdiction. He further contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to claim possession over the disputed land for the reason that the competent Courts of Civil jurisdiction have declared the disputed land as Khalisa. We have gone through the record of the case and also have considered the points put forward by both the learned counsel for the parties and stand to the opinion that the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are having no substance for issuing writ of this Court for the reason that the writ is an extraordinary remedy which is granted only when it is proved that, the order passed by the authority is illegal and void ab inito, against natural justice or against a fundamental right recognized by the Constitution, and for redressal of which no ordinary remedy is available in general/special law, of course, the Constitution of Pakistan as well as Legal Framework Order, 1994 recognize right to property of a citizen as a fundamental right but that right must be vested right. In the case in hand, the petitioner claims right over the disputed land but the claim is not coupled with ownership, he just claims possession and improvements over the disputed land which is again doubtful as the competent Courts of Civil jurisdiction have declared the property Khalisa, therefore, the petitioner has failed to prove infringement of a vested or fundamental right by impugned order. Consequent upon the foregoing discussion the writ petition is dismissed. S.M.B./125/P Petition dismissed.