1992 PLP 2304 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑Ss.10 & 11‑‑‑Jurisdiction‑‑‑Allotment against verified claim‑‑‑Petitioners claimed that their predecessor‑in‑interest had a duly verified claim against which land in question, was allotted in his favour initially on 22‑5‑1957 and finally on 17‑6‑1957, as such he became owner from whom petitioners inherited and allotment of same land subsequently in favour of respondent would not affect their right‑‑‑Remedy of petitioners would lie before Civil Court through suit to prove such facts. Ch. Muhammad Aslam Sindhu for Petitioners. Sh. Muhammad Hanif for Respondents Nos. 2 and

3. In this Constitutional petition the legality of order passed by respondent No.2 for allotment of land measuring 86 Kanals 2 Marlas out of Khewat No.850 situated in District Sheikhupura in favour of respondent No.1 and Mutation No.1824 sanctioned on 25‑5‑1991 in pursuance thereof has been challenged.

2. The case of the petitioners is that the land measuring 480 Kanals 19 Marlas was allotted in the name of Mehnga son of Sajwara deceased predecessor‑in‑interest of the. petitioners on 17‑6‑1957 against Khata No.1156 of RL‑11 Mauza Chuharkana, District Sheikhupura. According to them out of this land, land measuring 86 Kanals 2 Marlas has again been allotted to respondent No.1 and the allotment of predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners being prior in time has to prevail as he had become owner of the same and the petitioners as his heirs have inherited the land. In order to substantiate this plea the petitioners have placed on record a photostat copy of RL‑II of Khata No.1156 from which they want to show that the initial confirmation of land in favour of Mehnga, was made on 22‑2‑1957 which was finally confirmed on 17‑6‑1957. This copy appears to have been issued by Rehmat Ullah Patwari on 19‑6‑1957. Above these two dates i.e. 22‑5‑1957 and 17‑6‑1957 he has only written the following words:‑ It has not been indicated by the Patwari who issued this copy as to which officer of the Settlement Department passed this order because neither his name nor his status nor designation has been given. I called for report and parawise comments from respondents Nos.2 and 3 which have been submitted by respondent No.3 in which it has been stated that after holding inquiry through Revenue Officer and Patwari Halqa Farooqabad regarding the alleged allotment of land in favour of Mehnga, it was found that there was no entry of any such allotment of land in favour of Mehnga in the Revenue Record of Farooqabad and that copies of RL‑11 and other Revenue Record annexed with this writ petition were bogus and fictitious.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners when questioned was not in a position to give any reason as to why Mehnga deceased if he was allotted this land against his verified claim finally on 17‑6‑1957 did not get the entry made in the Revenue Record except that he died in the year 1974. From 1957 to 1974 there was a long period of seventeen years. Even after his death the present petitioners who claim to have inherited the land, did not take any steps to get the same entered in the Revenue Record and mutated in their names so as to exercise right of ownership over the same as claimed. One of the petitioners who is present in person when asked as to whether they have in their possession any document such as `fard haqiat' to demonstrate that the claim the number of which finds mention in the RL‑11 in lieu of which this land was allegedly allotted to Mehnga, frankly admitted that they are in possession of none at present.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that either this Court should hold an inquiry or remand the case to the notified Officer under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, for providing opportunity to the petitioners to produce evidence that the land in dispute was in fact allotted to Mehnga who had duly verified claim against which the same was allotted, to decide the question of genuineness or otherwise of the said alleged allotment.

5. I am afraid in Constitutional jurisdiction this Court cannot decide pure questions of facts which require elaborate inquiry and recording of evidence. The case cannot be remanded to the notified officer as the same does not fall within the purview of the expression "pending proceedings", therefore, Notified Officer has not been vested with any jurisdiction to decide the matter. Apart from this the case of the petitioners is that Mehnga had a duly verified claim against which the land was allotted in his favour initially on 22‑5‑1957 and finally on 17‑6‑1957, as such he became the owner from whom the petitioners inherited, as such, the allotment of the same land subsequently in favour of respondent No.1. does not affect their rights for which remedy lies before the Civil Court through a suit to prove these facts which may be availed of if they are so advised.

6. For the foregoing reasons this writ petition is dismissed in limine. AA./M‑571/L Petition dismissed.