1988 PLP 671 (SCMR)

ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of a Division Bench of Sind High Court dismissing a constitution petition filed by the petitioner by which he sought to claim the grant of the land in dispute on permanent basis which according to him was originally leased out to him under the Grow More Food Scheme. The reason which prevailed with the learned Judges of the Division Bench in the High Court in dismissing the constitution petition was that petitioner had failed to show that he was an aggrieved person, in the sense, that the land claimed by him was originally leased out to him. In this behalf following portion of the impugned judgment may be usefully reproduced hereunder: "The first question for consideration is whether the petitioner has any entitlement and is an aggrieved party. The petitioner claims allotment/lease of land under Grow More Food Scheme in respect of survey numbers mentioned in Annexure 'B' to the petition which according to him was allotted to him and his family members whose names have been mentioned in Annexure 'A' to the petition. Except the mere words of the petitioner there is nothing on record to show that these lands were leased out to the petitioner. Mr. Syed Nasiruddin the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point any document from which entitlement of the petitioner to these lands could be established. He has referred to a notice issued by the ACO Punnu Aqil in respect of the land, but this notice was issued to Haji Mahmoodul Hassan. According. to the learned counsel, the petitioner namely Haji Mohammad Ahsin is the same person as Haji Mahmoodul Hassan, but except mere oral assertion of the learned counsel, such clarification has not been made in the petition or any affidavit. We are not inclined to accept the statement of the learned counsel as both the names are completely different and no valid explanation has been provided by the petitioner to clarify it. The petitioner cannot claim the benefit of allotment/lease or notice issued to Haji Mahmoodul Hassan. Mr. Abdul Rahim Shaikh the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.4 and 5 has made a statement that Haji Mahmoodul Hassan is the brother of the petitioner and there are several litigations between them in which he is representing Haji Mahmoodul Hassan. In our view the petitioner has failed to establish entitlement to the property in respect of which notices were issued, and decisions were taken by the respondents Nos.1 and

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to Appendix 'B' to the Extract of the Minutes of the 28th meeting of the Land Utilization Committee held on 17‑6‑1970 pointed out that in Deh. Juna 166.17 acres have been shown against tube‑well owners. The name of the tube‑well owners is mentioned as Haji Mahmoodul Hassan, and not the petitioner. This document does not confer any right on the petitioner. The impugned decision of the respondent No.1 does not relate to the property in which petitioner has any interest. He is not an aggrieved party. Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the order of the respondents Nos.l and

2. He has come with unclean hand by making a claim on the basis of the ownership of the tube‑well which stands in the name of Haji Mahmoodul Hassan." Syed Nasiruddin, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition submitted that petitioner "Haji Mahmood Ahsan" is the same person as "Haji Mohammad Ahsan" and "Haji Mehmoodul Hasan", and the High Court has erred in reaching the conclusion to the contrary. We find that whereas in the petition filed in this Court the petitioner has named himself as "Haji Mahmood Ahsan", he, in the constitution petition before the High Court, had given out his name as "Haji Mohammad Ahsan". Be that it may, the reasons that prevailed with the learned Judges of the High Court for not being satisfied that petitioner is the same person to whom the disputed land was originally granted on lease are based on very sound inferences that can be legitimately drawn from the documents produced by the petitioner, and there is, therefore, no scope for interference by this court with the impugned judgment of the High Court. The petition is therefore, dismissed. M.I. /M‑351/S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.