2004 PLP 779 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Trespasser could not claim any right to maintain Constitutional petition. Hamid Ali Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th July, 2002. MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑This petition is directed against the judgment dated 18‑10‑1999 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, through which Constitutional petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 3‑5‑1984 of the Board of Revenue has been dismissed.

2. The land in dispute was allotted to the private respondents as Islamabad affectees. This land was included in Islamabad Oustees Scheme for providing compensation to the persons who were affected by acquisition of their land for construction of capital area in Islamabad.

3. The petitioners who are not allottees of any portion of the land in dispute under any scheme had filed writ petition before the High Court after a period of 12 years of the order dated 4‑8‑1986 passed by the Board of Revenue in revision petition filed by Iqbal and Qurban against the residents of Chak No.47/EB in which the petitioners were not party.

4. It appears from the impugned judgment of the High Court that learned counsel for the petitioners appearing before the said Court was asked to point out any documentary evidence to show that the petitioners were in possession of any portion of the land who relied upon Annexure 'A‑1' appended with the petition. The learned Judge of the High Court found after appraisal of the said documents that Islamabad affectees were shown to be owners of the land in the said document and one Allah Yar was shown in possession of 12 Kanals out of that under an agreement of sale from the said owners. The said Allah Yar was found to have had recourse to the Civil Court by filing suit in which he failed. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the First Appellate Court and revision petition filed before the High Court was also dismissed. He then filed Civil Petition No.1211‑L of 1995 before this Court which was dismissed on 7‑11‑1995 a copy of which judgment is available on the record of this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners when questioned as to how; and in what manner, the petitioners claimed any nexus with the land in dispute muchless any right under any law submitted that they were in illegal possession of the land as trespassers and as they were entitled to A retain the same as Government was legally bound to provide them shelter as was done in the case of such occupants by sanctioning 5 Marlas Scheme by providing land elsewhere to accommodate such persons.

6. We are afraid, if this ground could be a ground available in law to contest the claim of allottees under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme of the land in dispute. A trespasser could not claim any right to maintain the Constitutional petition. The petitioners should have independently approached the Government for providing them shelter and not to challenge the allotment of land made lawfully in favour of the respondents as Islamabad affectees under a scheme framed for them known as Islamabad Oustees Scheme in which this land was included.

7. The judgment impugned in this petition of the High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity, therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./A‑304/S Leave refused.