1997 PLP 449 (MLD)

Out of the disputed land admeasuring 194 Kanals 13 Marlas situated in Mauza Sarai, Tehsil and District Lodhran, Abdul Karim was allotted land against his verified claim on 3‑7‑1973 by Settlement Authority as evacuee property. Ghulam Rasool and others moved an application before Deputy Custodian under section 22 of Act XII of 1957 seeking a declaration that the property in dispute was not evacuee as the same was in their possession as occupancy tenants and as such was not available for allotment. Deputy Custodian recorded the evidence of the parties and partly dismissed the application. The order of the Deputy Custodian was appealed against. Custodian, Evacuee Property accepted the appeal on 23‑6‑1973 and declared the entire disputed property as non‑evidence. Abdul Karim allottee filed Writ Petition No.1273‑R‑77 which was heard by Mr. Justice Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh and Mr. Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi (as they then were) and on 26‑6‑1994 the same was dismissed. The learned Division Bench however, issued the following directions:‑‑‑ "However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner, a displaced person having been allotted the land measuring 88 Kanals 12 Marlas 22 years ago lost the same in consequence of the decision of the learned Custodian in 1977 and he had been agitating for some allotment throughout this long period, we direct that the outstanding claim of the petitioner, if any, should be adjusted out of the available evacuee land, now forming of Provincial Government Pool, anywhere in Punjab." Abdul Karim petitioner, through his general attorney made an application to Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore on 18‑10‑1994 and requested for implementation of the orders of the Lahore High Court dated 26‑6‑1994 by making adjustment of outstanding P.I.Us. The Chief Settlement Commissioner entrusted the application to Addl. Commissioner (Rev.)/Settlement Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division for disposal according to law in terms of the order of the High Court and the disputed land admeasuring 14 Kanals 6 Marlas bearing Khasra No.589/11 Killa No. 15‑Alif, 4 Kanals Killa No. 19‑Alif, 2 Kanals 6 Marlas and 589/15 Killa No. 11, 8 Kanals amongst other land was allotted to heirs of Abdul Karim (respondents No. 3 to 14) on 21‑11‑1994.

2. The petitioner textile mills has impugned the order of allotment/adjustment in favour of Abdul Karim's heirs on the ground that they were in possession of the said land which was residual property and as such was entitled to the transfer of the same under the scheme for disposal of Residual Property.

3. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the respondents on the ground that the petitioner was in unauthorised possession and as such the writ petition was not maintainable; the writ petition has not been filed by an authorised person; the petitioner mill was not in possession of the land in dispute for the required period. It has further been contended that in para 2 of the petition the writ petitioner has himself admitted that its occupation was unauthorised since 28‑4‑1966 but the same was not borne out from the revenue record and that the petitioner mills was not entitled to the transfer of disputed land as Residual Property due to non‑fulfilment of terms and conditions as laid down in Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Law (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975).

4. The petitioner has admitted that his possession over the disputed land was unauthorised. Relief through extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction was to be granted to an aggrieved person. An unauthorised occupant was not an aggrieved person in case the said property was allotted by the competent authority to a person held entitled to the same. Reliance is placed on Abdul Sattar and others v. Assistant Commissioner, Gujranwala and others 1988 MLD 1321. The petitioner, on the above ground, was not even entitled to a notice before allotment to respondents Nos.3 to 14.

5. The petitioner was owner of 355 Kanals 19 Marlas of land and the Mills was constructed at site in the year 1969‑

70. The plea of the petitioner regarding possession has not been supported by copies of Revenue Record which has the presumption of truth unless set aside by decree of the Court as provided under section 53, West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. The letters if written by the writ petitioner to A.D.C.(G) and its reply is of no help to the petitioner either. The petitioner could only get the land if he was held entitled to the same under the Scheme of disposal of Residual Property by administrator thereof. In the present case respondents Nos.3 to 14 were allotted that said land in compliance with the direction of this Court which was ordered to be implemented by Chief Settlement Commissioner. The disputed land as such was not available land under section 3 of Evacuee Displaced Persons Laws. (Repeal) Act, 1975 and therefore could not be disposed of as residual property as held in Abdul Sattar etc.'s case referred supra. Reliance is placed on Allah Ditta and others v. M.B.R./C.S.C. and others (1983 CLC 219 Lahore).

6. The petitioner has also failed to show any deprivation of assumed vested right in order to earn the cause of action to file the present writ petition or to agitate that he was entitled to some relief out of natural justice. The petitioner had no right nor was entitled to any notice. Company had any locus standi to file the present petition as admittedly an illegal occupant which possession could not be protected. Law does not recognize the locus of an illegal occupant to challenge the orders of allotment passed by competent authorities in favbur of a displaced person held entitled under the law.

7. The petition has been filed by Intizar Ahmad the manager of the petitioner, a limited company known as Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd. A limited company could only sue or be sued through Chief Executive as provided under its Memorandum and Articles of Association. Copy of Memorandum and Articles of Association has not been annexed with the writ petition nor copy of resolution by the Board of Directors or Power of Attorney authorising Intizar Ahmad to file the present writ petition and I have no hesitation in holding that petition has not been filed through a properly constituted attorney and is liable to be dismissed.

9. In view of what has been discussed above the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,

000. A.A./G‑11/L Petition dismissed.