1993 PLP 1643 (MLD)

3. Alongwith this Constitutional petition, the petitioner filed an application (C.M. No.l/71), praying that pending the decision of this petition, status quo be maintained. This was followed by another application (C.M. No.3/71), seeking an order restraining the respondents from disposing of the land and directing the maintenance of status quo. On 16th September, 1971, this Court restrained the respondents from alienating the land which had been given to the respondents in pursuance to the orders of Consolidation Officers.

4. Before this petition could be argued on merit, a preliminary objection was raised by Mr. Rizwan Amjad Chaudhry, Advocate, that the petitioner has, during the pendency of this petition, alienated a part of his holding and has as such become disentitled to the grant of discretionary relief. Reliance has been placed upon Khushi Muhammad v. The Board of Revenue, West Pakistan and 3 others P L D 1973 Lah. 829 and Taza Gul v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and others 1982 S C M R 111.

5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied that a part of the holding has been alienated by the petitioner, but he states that it was on account of compelling circumstances that he did so. He also submitted that alienation of the part of the holding does not disentitle the petitioner to the grant of relief.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents has merit. As the dispute arose out of consolidation proceedings, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have maintained the holding which was allocated to him in consolidation proceedings, so that in the event of success of his petition, the rights of the parties inter se can be readjusted and precons'olidation position restored. By alienating a part of his holding, the petitioner has himself made it A impossible to do so. He is, therefore, clearly not entitled to exercise of any discretion in his favour. The following observations of Karam Elahee Chauhan, J. (as his Lordship then was) in Khushi Muhammad v. The Board of Revenue, West Pakistan and 3 others P L D 1973 Lah. 829 -are instructive and may be reproduced with advantage:-- "According to that affidavit, Khushi Muhammad petitioner has sold one acre of land to a mill, two acres for a church to the Christian community and has leased out fifteen acres of land for a brick-kiln for a period of ten years and has also effected sale of earth of some land which has turned now into the shape of deep pits. This will show that the petitioner has altered the state of land during the course of the pendency of this writ petition in this Court. This conduct of petitioner also disentitles him to a discretionary relief which is now being claimed in the writ petition, especially when it will not be possible for this Court to restore the status quo ante which the petitioner virtually wishes to be restored through this writ petition. Looked at from whatever point of view, the petition filed by the petitioner cannot succeed." ' 1t is also to be noted that the petitioner himself had obtained a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating their holding and it was, as such all the more necessary for him to maintain status quo. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A.A./A-410/L Petition dismissed.