P L D 2012 Balochistan 186 (PLP)

QAZI FAEZ ISA, C.J.

This petition was filed on May 5, 2009 and it was listed for katcha peshi on May 14, 2009 of which date the order sheet reads as under: "The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondents have started exploration of oil in the area and on our query as to whether any document has been attached with the petition, the learned counsel seeks time to place certain documents on record. Date in office after one week."

2. On the next date of hearing (May 27, 2009) the counsel for the petitioners sought time, where after, adjournments were sought and on March 16, 2010 notice was issued to the respondents. The above order dated May 14, 2009 for placement of any document showing that exploration of oil had commenced in the area has remained unattended till date.

3. After filing of the petition C.M.A. No.1025 of 2009 was filed seeking to add another 37 persons as petitioners, "since the landed property as well as adjacent land i.e. Shamilat which is in possession of the petitioners over which exploration of oil and gas has been commenced..."

4. It is case of the petitioners that, "the petitioners tribesmen are living in Tehsil Drug since their forefathers i.e. 4 to 5 hundred years" (paragraph 3 of the petition) and that "a grand Jirga of the aforesaid Tribesmen were held under the Chairmanship of petitioner No.1" (paragraph 4 of the petition) where it was decided to nominate the petitioners to file the petition. It is alleged that, "the land of Tehsil Drug belongs to above seven tribes and no inch of land belongs to the Government" (paragraph 5 of the petition) and as such the Government of Pakistan could not carry out survey in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioners' tribes and other tribes for the purpose of exploration and production of oil and gas. In paragraph 7 of the petition it is contended that, "the respondents in order to carry out the survey work neither informed nor consulted the petitioners, who are Sardars of their respective tribes."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners and those sought to be joined as parties are the owners of the subject land upon which survey has been carried out without complying with the applicable law, which according to the learned counsel for the petitioners is the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and only after the provisions of the said law are complied with and compensation paid to the petitioners and the other persons who are sought to be joined as petitioners, can the respondents proceed with the survey of the land.

6. Malik Sikandar, the learned Deputy Attorney General ("DAG") opposed the petition on the following grounds: (1) That the petitioners have not attached any impugned order or notification and has filed the petition upon surmises and conjectures; (2) That there is no evidence of any purported survey having been carried out, and (3) That the petitioners do not fall within the definition of 'aggrieved' persons under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan and that the Article 199 is otherwise not attracted as the petitioners have "other adequate remedy" at law. Mr. Tariq Ali Tahir, learned Additional Advocate General ("AAG") whilst adopting the arguments of the learned DAG further added that the Government of Balochistan has not been arrayed as a party and that the Commissioner, Zhob Division at Loralai or District Coordination Officer Musakhail (respectively respondents Nos.2 and 3) cannot be categorized as Government of Balochistan. It is next contended that the petitioners have not established their title and disputed question of facts are involved in the petition, which cannot be resolved by this court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. The learned DAG and AAG stated that without filing of comments/replies they are prepared to proceed with the petition and will be relying on the aforesaid legal objections.

7. We having heard the learned counsel and gone through the documents filed by the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners have not attached any impugned order or notification with the petition and have also failed to attend to the specific query of the court as noted in the order dated May 14, 2009 above. The petition primarily relies upon the letter written by petitioner No.1 as Chief of Jaffar Tribe and called upon respondent No.6 to enter into negotiations with the "grand Jirga" and to resolve the matter "in consultation with the grand Jirga [at the] earliest". We inquired from the learned counsel whether any reliance can be placed on such letter in the light of the System of Sardari (Abolition) Act, 1976 (Act XL of 1976) whereby vide Section 3, the "System of Sardari shall stand abolished." It would also be useful to reproduce the preamble of the said Act as under: "Whereas, the system of Sardari, prevalent in certain parts of Pakistan, is the worst remnant of the oppressive feudal and tribal system which, being derogatory to human dignity and freedom, is repugnant to the spirit of democracy and equality as enunciated by Islam and enshrined in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and opposed to the economic advancement of the people." Moreover, the grievance of the petitioners was addressed to a private company, wherein objection was not to carrying out the alleged exploration activities, but instead seeking to negotiate with such foreign company. The only other document attached with the petition is a letter written on behalf of the Commandant Loralai Scouts (respondent No.4) which was in response to an "application number nil dated nil", however, copy of such application has not been attached with the petition. The respondent No.4 however denied allegations contained in the said application and concluded by stating, "it is suggested do not misled govt. official/agencies."

8. We agree with the learned DAG and AAG that the petitioners are not aggrieved persons and, if at all they are aggrieved they have other adequate remedy provided by law to establish their title over the property and thereafter to protest against any ingress on the same or illegal encroachment thereof. Furthermore, the petition on the face of it involves disputed question of facts, which cannot be resolved by this court in its constitutional jurisdiction. Therefore, the petition is dismissed in limine but with no order as to cost. K.M.Z./34/Bal Petition dismissed.