1989 PLP 473 (MLD)

Ch. Muhammad Saeed for Petitioner. Khadim Jillani, Consolidation Officer alongwith Muhammad Rafiq, Consolidation Patwari, Mauza Gaddoki, District Kasur for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3: Tallat Farooq Sheikh and Ch. Muhammad Nazeer Janjua for Respondents Nos. 4 to

6. Date of hearing: 19th February, 1989. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner through this writ petition mainly is that to spite of remand orders passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Lahore Division Lahore dated 28‑6‑1983 and 16‑4‑1984 regarding disputes between the petitioner and Fazal Karim respondent No. 5 and remand order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 19‑2‑1983 in respect of dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 namely Major Azmatullah, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) has consigned the proceedings by orders dated 20‑11‑1983 and 14‑1‑1985 till correction of the record was made pursuant to suo motu move made by the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) which according to the petitioner amounts to refusal to exercise jurisdiction.

2. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 4 and 5 on this point could not satisfy me that the A.D.C. (C) to whom the cases were remanded could postpone the disposal of the same merely because there was suo motu move before the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) for correction. It is a case where A.D.C.(C) has not only failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under the law, rather declined to act in accordance with the directions contained in the remand orders. The orders date 20‑11‑1983 and 14‑1-1985 through which the said proceedings were consigned to the record sine die are hereby declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect and are quashed. The writ petition of the petitioner against respondents Nos. 4 and 5 is accepted accordingly. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation) is hereby directed to dispose of the cases remanded to him by the learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) through orders referred to in the earlier part of this judgment.

3. The other grievance of the petitioner is that he was allotted some land by the Border Area Committee on 12‑8‑1952. According to him it is evident from the order of D.R.C. dated 29‑10‑1966 that the petitioner deposited the entire price of the land and a direction was given in the said order that the mutation of transfer of ownership rights be sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner in consequence thereof Mutation No. 658 was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner on 6‑12‑1966, a copy of which has been appended with the writ petition as Annex. `G'. His grievance is that subsequently through Mutation No. 984 sanctioned by AC‑II on 10‑6‑1975 Muhammad Shafi respondent No. 6 was also made joint owner of the said land with the petitioner and that neither he nor respondent No. 7 had any rights in this land as none of them paid anything in respect of the transfer price or otherwise they were not also joined by the petitioner with him.

4. It is manifest from this Mutation No. 984 that it was sanctioned in pursuance to an order passed by the Border Area Committee, on 22‑12‑1972 which has not been directly challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition. Unless the petitioner crosses the hurdle of order dated 22‑12‑1972 allegedly passed by the Border Area Committee, he could not challenge the sanction of Mutation No. 984 on 10‑6‑1975 which is noshing but a superstructure raised on the said area of Border Committee. The Border Area Committee has also not been impleaded as one of the respondents though Muhammad Shafi in whose favour the said mutation was sanctioned has been impleaded. The petitioner may seek remedy separately against the order of Border Area Committee dated 22‑12‑1972 if he is so minded. This writ petition so far as it relates to Mutation No. 984 dated 10‑6‑1975 sanctioned by A C‑II is concerned is hereby dismissed subject to above observations without any order as to costs. M.Z.S./M‑1184/L Order accordingly.