1986 PLP 1022 (CLC)

‑‑Art. 9‑‑Legality of orders passed by Tribunal below‑‑Orders passed by Tribunal after applying their minds to factual and legal aspects of case while giving sound reasons in support of their orders‑‑Such orders not suffering from any legal infirmity‑‑Interference in constitutional jurisdiction declined. Peer Zafar Hussain Shah for Petitioner. This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, whereby Piara petitioner wants this Court to declare orders, dated 26‑10‑1981 and 25‑3‑1980 passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts leading up to this petition in brief are that the disputed land measuring 100 Kanals situated in Chak No.136/16‑L, Teh. Khanewal was granted to one Nanda on Lambardari Scheme. Since Nanda died, the land was resumed in favour of State through Mutation No.314, dated 15‑4‑1977. The petitioner claiming to be a sub‑tenant under Nanda Lambardar since 1975 applied for the sale on the ground that he being the actual tillers of the land since 1975, was entitled to its allotment under the instructions issued by the Government. The Assistant Commissioner/ Collector respondent No.2, however, through impugned order, dated 25‑3‑1980 leased out the same to Muhammad Azeem Khan, respondent No.3 under 5 years' lease scheme. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed on 26‑10‑1981 by respondent No.

1. Hence this writ petition

3. The learned counsel has submitted: (1) that since the petitioner was in possession of the disputed land as sub‑tenant under Nanda Lambardar and after his death continued to be its actual tiller and has been paying dues to the Government regularly, therefore, the same could not 5e leased out to respondent No.3 in contravention of instructions contained in letter No. 947/78/367/CL‑1, dated 1‑3‑1978. (2) the impugned orders being self‑contradictory and based on conjectures are illegal orders. (3) Since the Commissioner has directed respondent No.2 to hold enquiry as to correctness of the entries in Khasra Girdawari, he should not have decided appeal before the receipt of the enquiry report.

4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the material available before me, I find that the possession or cultivation of the petitioner, if any, at the time of issuance of the instructions referred by him was certainly illicit and as such he was not entitled to its allotment. In any case, the claim of the petitioner that he has been in continuous possession as an actual tiller having not been accepted by the Commissioner who found the entry of the names of the petitioner not free from doubt, the matter requires factual investigation which cannot be done by this Court while sitting in Constitutional jurisdiction. As for submissions Nos.2 and 3, I find that the impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity. While dismissing the appeal, the Commissioner was competent to direct enquiry about the forgery in the Revenue Record. The respondents Nos.l and 2 have applied their mind to the factual and legal aspects of the case and have given sound reasons in support of their orders and as such it cannot be said that the impugned orders were passed without lawful authority.

5. For what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed in limine. H . B . T . Petition dismissed