1989SCMR 413 (PLP)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑The petitioners, ousted allottees of Government land, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sind dated 16‑3‑1987 whereby their Constitutional petition was dismissed. The petitioners were admittedly the grantees of Government land under the Mechanised Farming Scheme since 6th of March, 1962. It appears that in the year 1973, they were proceeded against for non‑observance of the conditions of allotment and by an order dated 8‑8‑1973 the grant was cancelled as per Condition No.23 and the amount deposited was forfeited and the land was ordered to be published in the Schedule to be disposed of under the New Policies. It is said that its re-allotment took place in the year 1976. In 1980 the petitioners claimed to have learnt for the first time that the grant made to them had been cancelled and that was in proceedings relating to the recovery of rent advanced against this land by the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan. They kept on agitating against the cancellation of grant without observing the prescribed conditions of the Grant, particularly its condition No.l5 and the one providing for notice for rectifying the breach under section 2.1 of the Colonization of the. Government Lands Act. Finally, they filed a Constitutional petition in September, 1985, which came up for hearing in the High Court. The learned Judges dismissed the petition observing as follows:‑ "The fact of reallotment of lands to 78 haris in 1976 coupled with the laches on the part of the petitioners, is sufficient to disentitle the petitioners from invoking writ jurisdiction, which is equitable in nature. Furthermore, the petitioners, not availing the remedies available to them under the statute, is also a factor to be considered for not invoking writ jurisdiction in their favour. We, therefore, do not feel inclined to exercise our jurisdiction, in the circumstances of the case, in favour of the petitioners merely for non‑compliance of condition No.15 of the said Notification, that is, failing to issue notice to the petitioners before disposal of land to haris. We are clear m our mind that the writ can be refused if the petitioners are to be blamed for themselves for their conduct and for not challenging the order in proper forum and are guilt) of laches, even if the subsequent allotment to the haris is considered to be invalid. Reliance is placed on the case of Sharif Ahmad Hashmi v. Chairman, Screening Committee Lahore & another 1978 S C M R 367." Mr.Fakhruddin G.Ebrahim, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed arguments to demonstrate that gross violation of law and the principles of natural justice and the terms of the Grant had taken place. It was a case in which appropriately the Constitutional jurisdiction could be invoked and redress provided. On the plea taken up by the petitioners themselves that they learnt of the cancellation order in 1980 when coercive proceedings were started against them for the recovery of the loan, they had to account for the delay taking place between 1980 and 1985. All that they have been able to show is that they have been moving the Martial Law Administrator of the Area time and again and repeatedly. This makes it clear that it was not the departmental relief or the statutory relief or the Constitutional relief which the petitioners had been seeking in the interregnum. They have been invoking the extra‑Judicial/statutory powers of the Martial Law Authorities. They had been seeking the administrative action for redress of their grievance. These have not been recognized as appropriate remedies to qualify as proper explanation for showing diligence and observance of the requirement of law of the land. The High Court has correctly come to the conclusion that such an explanation does not satisfy the requirement of the law, and therefore, the petition could not be entertained. Moreso, in view of the fact in the interregnum the rights of others have come into existence and those others I were not at fault in the matter. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. M.A.K./A‑373/S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.