1987 PLP 893 (SCMR)

Ch. Masood Zakariya, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners. Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th January, 1987. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑In these two petitions leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 16‑4‑1985 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners' two Constitutional Petitions challenging the orders of Consolidation Authorities, were dismissed.

2. The petitioner‑side represents allottees of the evacuee land/ interest in the village while the respondent‑side are the local original owners. The land allotted to the petitioner‑side has been found to be in excess of the available evacuee land in the village. It has been so determined with reference to long litigation which includes also previous judgments of the High Court. The Consolidation Authorities were confronted with a very difficult situation namely, that the evacuee land shown in papers was not available at site. The actual area was less. The allottees of the evacuee land could be accommodated either by ratable reduction of the allotted area‑‑about 13 Kanals in each 100 Kanals or by excluding those allottees who obtained the land last of all. The latter course was not adopted because it would exclude some of the displaced persons. The former course was followed because it was considered not only practicable but also fair to all the displaced persons. It was mentioned that the petitioner‑side (allottees of the evacuee land) also agreed to this resolution of the controversy.

3. The petitioners felt aggrieved and brought the matter before the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. A learned Judge after carefully noticing all the necessary facts and circumstances agreed with the Consolidation Authorities that the course adopted by them was not only practicable but also fair and declined to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. They have now sought leave to appeal.

4. Learned counsel has contended that the Consolidation Authorities have no jurisdiction to reduce the area of allotment as that adversely affects the title of the petitioners. The argument appears to be prima facie attractive. But on deeper scrutiny it has been found that the Consolidation Authorities were confronted with an absolutely impossible situation. The entire land in the name of the petitioners on papers was not available at site. It was less, as calculated by the learned counsel, by about 13 Kanals in every 100 Kanals. In such a situation either some of the allottees had to be excluded (the learned counsel for the petitioners states that 4 Khatas out of 134 Khatas of allotment should have been excluded), or the area on papers should have been reduced rateably so as to make it consistent with the area available at the site and also to accommodate all the Khatas. The High Court has found the course adopted by the Consolidation Authorities not only fair but also in accord with the wishes of the displaced persons earlier expressed. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the area, in so far as its existence at the site is concerned, had been reduced. And in this context it would not involve a question of title. In any case, the reason which prevailed with the High Court for not exercising discretionary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners is unexceptionable. We do not find any justification for exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to grant leave to appeal in the peculiar circumstances of this case. It is accordingly refused. M.I./A‑24/S Petition dismissed.