1990 PLP 148 (CLC)

‑‑‑Preamble‑‑‑Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S:44‑‑‑Crown land‑‑‑Tribunal of special jurisdiction, viz. Financial Commissioner had found the land in question to be the `Crown land' and not `Shamilat Deh'‑‑ Revenue Court thus had the jurisdiction to adjudicate about the same‑‑‑Order of ejectment passed by Land Revenue functionaries was not shown to be either unlawful or illegal justifying interference in Constitutional jurisdiction. B Kh. Shahad Ahmad for Petitioner. Sardar Muhammad Yasin Khan for Respondents Nos.l to

3. M. Nisar Mirza, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondents Nos.4 and

5. Through this constitutional petition, the orders to the Financial Commissioner Azad Jammu and Kashmir, dated 24‑6‑1984 and 27‑6‑1987, have been called in question. 2_ The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that Hafiz Abdul Karim and Ghulam Rasool, respondents moved an application for ejectment of the petitioner from the Crown land comprising survey Nos. 945/1 and 959/1. measuring 155 kanals 5 marlas, situate in village Hil Kallan, Tehsil and District Kotli, before the Assistant Collector, Grade‑II, Kotli on 5‑4‑1982 which was. dismissed by him vide his order dated 17‑12‑1992_

3. The above‑named respondents filed an appeal against the order of the aforesaid order of the Assistant Collector Grade‑II, Kotli, before the Collector District Kotli who accepting the same, ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the Crown land in question vide his order dated 31‑3‑1983. Feeling aggrieved by the above order of the District Collector, the petitioner filed an appeal against the same before the Commissioner who, vide his order dated 23‑2‑1984, set aside the order under appeal and remanded the case to the District Collector, Kotli with the direction that before taking proceedings for ejectment against the petitioner, his right in the land in question may be determined. Haf7 Abdul Karim and Khalil, respondents went in revision against the aforesaid order of the Commissioner, before the Financial Commissioner who vide his order dated June 24, 1984, set aside the order of the Commissioner impugned before him in revision and restored that of District Collector. The petitioner filed an application for review of the above order of the Financial Commissioner ors 22‑7‑1985 but the same was dismissed on 27‑6‑1987. The petitioner has non challenged the validity of the above orders of the Financial Commissioner in this writ petition:

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 24‑6‑1984 is unlawful because no proceedings for ejectment could be taken by a Revenue Officer under the Land Revenue Act in respect of the Shamilat Deh land and as the land from which the petitioner had been ordered to be ejected by the District Collector vide his order dated 31‑3‑1983 which is maintained by the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 24‑6‑1984, although was originally Crown land, was sanctioned as Shamilat Deh land.

5. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have contended that the land in possession of the petitioner was Crown land and not Shamilat Deh land and, as such, the Revenue Officers were quite competent to pass the order for ejectment of the petitioner therefrom, with the result that the orders of the Financial Commissioner impugned in this petition are quite lawful.

6. I have given my due consideration to the above contentions of the learned counsel for the parties in the light of the facts and record of the case, after which I have come to the conclusion that this writ petition has no merit and needs dismissal. In the first place, this writ petiton suffers from laches inasmuch as the Financial Commissioner had passed the impugned order restoring the order of the District Collector for ejectment of the petitioner on 24‑6‑1984, whereas this writ petition was filed on 16‑8‑1987, i.e. more than 3 years after the passing of the said order by the Financial Commissioner. The petitioner, of course, had filed a review application against the order of the Financial Commissioner dated 24‑6‑1984 on 22‑7‑1985 but the above review petition was not competent as under the Land Revenue Act, the Financial Commissioner has not been given the power to review his orders. Thus, it appears that the petitioner, in order to avoid the consequences of the legal objection as to his writ petition against the orders of the Financial Commissioner suffering from laches, had filed an incompetent review petition before the Financial Commissioner.

7. Apart from the above ground, this writ petition is devoid of any merit. There is nothing on the record to show that at the time of passing the order of ejectment of the petitioner by the District Collector which though set aside by the Commissioner, was restored by the Financial Commissioner vide his order dated 24‑6‑1984, the land in question was Shamilat Deh land and not the Crown land. In the judgment impugned in this writ petition, the land is held to be Crown land. It is a finding of fact by the tribunals of special jurisdiction which cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless it is found to be patently wrong, from g the record. As said earlier, since the land was the Crown land at the time the proceedings for the ejectment of the petitioner were initiated and concluded, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it was Shamilat Deh land, is devoid of any force. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any other ground for holding the orders impugned in this writ petition to be unlawful and ineffective against the rights of the petitioner. The Revenue Officers had the power and jurisdiction to order the ejectment of the petitioner from the Crown land in his unlawful possession and by doing so, they have not committed any illegality needing any rectification by issuing the writ sought by the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, finding no substance in this writ petition, the same is dismissed. AA/372/H.CA Petition dismissed.