1990 PLP 1590 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑Para. 13‑‑Border Area Allotment Committee‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185‑‑‑Petitioner was allotted land on assumption that his case had been recommended by G.H.Q.‑‑‑Petitioner's allotment was cancelled subsequently on knowledge that his case had not been recommended by G.H.Q. and that he had secured allotment fraudulently‑‑‑High Court dismissed petitioner's Constitutional petition on receipt of report from G.H.Q. that it had not recommended petitioner's case‑‑‑Petitioner could not show any allotment recommendation by G.H.Q.‑‑‑Petitioner had thus raised a factual question which had been resolved by the forums below‑‑‑Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Karamat Nazir Bhindari, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant. Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4: Ex parte. Respondent No.3 in person. Date of hearing: 20th May, 1990. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY.‑‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant to consider whether the land measuring 200 Kanals was allotted to the petitioner by the Border Area Allotment Committee.

2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner claimed that he applied to the G.H.Q, for allotment of land in the Border Area. His application was recommended by means of letter No.7778/487/WR‑1, dated 8th January, 1962. On the basis of above recommendation, the petitioner was allotted 200 Kanals of land in Chak No.262/11R, Tehsil Fortabbas, District Bahawalnagar by the respondent No.2 on 29‑1‑1970. The allotment in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on 20‑2‑1979 by respondent No.l. The petitioner riled a Constitution petition in the High Court but the same was dismissed on 21‑9‑1982 by the High Court.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by learned counsel for respondent No.3 that the land was not allotted to the petitioner by the G.1‑1.Q. The High Court in para. 2 of the impugned judgment has stated as under:‑‑ "The comments of the respondents were called and in their comments they explained that the case for allotment in favour of the petitioner was never recommended by the G.H.Q. Rawalpindi and it was a bogus allotment. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertook to produce the record evincing the recommendation of the G.H.Q., Rawalpindi for allotment of land in favour of the petitioner. Three adjournments have been granted to the petitioner to produce the said letter. The said letter has not been produced and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that the whereabouts of the petitioner are not known and he has shifted to District Hazara."

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to letter dated 11th May, 1972 alleged to have been issued by the Adjutant‑General; but this letter only states that letter No.7778/487/WR‑1 dated 6th January, 1962 is correct. This letter does not show that any land was allotted to the petitioner. On the other hand the letter dated 16th February, 1978 issued by the Adjutant‑General, has specifically stated that G.H.Q. had not recommended for the allotment of land to 1the petitioner in Chak No.262/HR, Tehsil Fortabbas District Bahawalnagar. The' Border Area Committee has also taken notice of the fact that the petitioner secured allotment fraudulently, because he was not recommended of the G.H.Q. E as is provided in M.L.R. No.9. The Committee made a reference to the G.H.Q. as there was a doubt and the G.H.Q. on 16‑2‑1978 confirmed that no recommendation for allotment of land was made in favour of the petitioner. The learned counsel has referred to the letter dated 18th September, 1984, issued by one Lt.‑Col. Muhammad Azam Khan, that the name of the petitioner for the allotment of land was mentioned at Serial No.140 but such letter has not been produced. Even the list of the persons whose names had been recommended has not been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that in spite of his best efforts he could not secure copy of the letter from the G.H.Q. to prove that the petitioner was recommended by the G.H.Q. The petitioner has raised factual question which has been resolved against him by all the forums. There is no force in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A.A./D‑81/S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.