1996SCMR1379 (PLP)

ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.

Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 22-8-1995 dismissing their Constitutional petition (W.P. No. 215/79).

2. Petitioners' mother Mst. Karamat Bibi was allotted a ' Mueen Ihata' by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector on 15-10-1970. Appeal filed by Taj Muhammad respondent was dismissed by Additional Commissioner. His revision petition was, however, accepted by the learned Member .(Colonies), Board of Revenue vide order dated 12-12-1978. The learned Member held "The Patwari states that there are still eight Abadkari 1hatas available for allotment. A Mueen Ihata, therefore, cannot be allotted to a landowner when Abadkari Ihatas are available". The Ihata in dispute was accordingly directed to be allotted to Taj Muhammad. It was, however, observed by the learned Member that Mst. Karamat Bibi should be given one of the available Abadkari sites.

3. Feeling aggrieved; Mst. Karamat Bibi approached the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction but with no better result as her writ petition has been dismissed vide the impugned judgment, in para. 6 whereof; learned Judge in the High Court has held that the writ petitioner could not have been allotted the Ihata in dispute which was meant for Mueens only more so when other Ihatas were available which could have been allotted to her.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has not denied that the petitioners' mother Mst. Karamat Bibi was a landowner white Taj Muhammad respondent is a Mueen and that the Ihata in dispute was reserved for Mueens. He has also not denied that at the relevant time, ' Abadkari Ihatas' were available for allotment to the proprietors though he has made a grievance that no ' Abadkari Thata' is now available for allotment. In view of the factual position admitted by the learned Counsel, the learned Member, Board of Revenue was right in holding that the Thata in dispute could not have been allotted to Mst. Karamat Bibi. As regards the petitioners' grievance that no ' Abadkari Ihata' is now available, they are to blame themselves as their mother instead of seeking the allotment of 'Abadkari Ihata'; in pursuance of the observation of the Member, Board of Revenue sought to agitate her claim for the allotment of Ihata in dispute by filing a Constitutional petition in the High Court which petition remained pending in the High Court for about 16 years and in the meantime 'Abadkari Ihatas', it appears, had been allotted to other persons. Learned counsel also sought to contend that the learned Member, Board of Revenue acted illegally in allowing the revision petition, of the respondent without noticing that his appeal before the Additional Commissioner was barred by time. Petitioners do not appear to have raised/pressed this point as such either before the learned Member. Board of Revenue or in the High Court. Be that as it may, the learned Judge in the High Court, has observed in the impugned judgment that the delay in filing the appeal was' condoned by the Additional Commissioner who had dismissed the appeal on merits. This observation/finding is borne out from the order of the Additional Commissioner.

5. Upshot of the above discussion is that we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. A.A./G-551/S Leave refused.