1997 PLP 1667 (CLC)

Brief facts of the case are that respondents Nos.2 to 5 submitted an application to Deputy Commissioner, Khanewal stating that petitioners had managed to' get Sanads of Ihatas Nos.36 and 37 situated in Basti Balochan, Mauza Zoor Kot, Tehsil Jahanian District Khanewal through unlawful means. Possession of the aforesaid Ihatas was claimed by respondents Nos.2 to

5. It was also alleged that Sanads were procured by the petitioners through fraudulent means and were liable to be cancelled. The application was sent to Tehsildar Jahanian for report on 19‑1‑1991. He after conducting inquiry submitted report to A.C. Khanewal, who after hearing the parties cancelled the Sanads issued in favour of petitioners vide order dated 19‑5‑1991.

2. The petitioners filed an appeal before Deputy Commissioner, Khanewal, who accepted the same and set aside the order of A.C., on 3‑2‑1992. Feeling dissatisfied the respondents challenged this order before learned Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Multan Division, Multan by preferring an appeal but the same was dismissed on 7‑5‑1992. They further filed Writ Petition No.2190 of 1992 in this Court which was disposed of with the following observation on 23‑9‑1992:‑ "As the petitioners have a remedy to challenge the order of the District Collector before the Provincial Government under section 10 of Act No.III of 1986. this petition is not competent in this Court at this stage. The petitioners may, if so advised, challenge the order of the Collector before the Provincial Government according to law."

3. Respondents Nos.2 to 5 thereafter instituted an application under section 10 of the Punjab Jinnah Abadis for Non‑Proprietors in Rural Areas Act (III of 1986', before the Member (Colonies) Government of Punjab, Lahore which was entrusted to Commissioner Multan Division, Multan for disposal as delegatee of the Government. Learned Commissioner vide impugned order dated 28‑8‑1995 while setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector Khanewal dated 3‑2‑1992 and that of A.C. Khanewal dated 19‑5‑1991 and remanded the case to Deputy Commissioner Khanewal with the direction that he should visit the site and verify in Ijlas‑e‑Aam as to who was in physical possession of Ihatas in question before 1988 and then decide the matter according to the instructions of the Board of Revenue on the subject.

4. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order passed by learned Commissioner Multan in this constitution petition on the ground that no powers of revision or appeal were available to him against the order of Deputy Commissioner, Khanewal dated 3‑2‑1992 passed under section 9 of the aforesaid Act III of 1986. He further submits that Commissioner Multan Division was not Government as contemplated by section 10 of Act III of 1986 and as such order of Deputy Commissioner could not beset aside by him.

5. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 5 on the other hand submits that this writ petition is not maintainable against a remand order and has relied upon Muhammad Ilyas Khan v, Muhammad and others (1986 SCMR 251); Mst. Kaniz Fatima and 3 others v. Member (Rev.) Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore and 5 others (PLD 1973 Lahore 495) and Ghulam Rasul and others v. Khudai Dad and others (PLD 1986 Quetta 130). He further submits that under section 6 of the Act (supra) the allotment could be cancelled at any time by the Collector notwithstanding grant of proprietary rights to any allottee. He has also argued that the Commissioner was delegated the powers of Government for purposes of section 10 of the Act, therefore, he was competent to pass the impugned order.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record as well as the authorities referred to above. Admittedly remand order has been assailed in this petition. Normally High Court does not interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with the remand orders as they do not conclusively determine the rights of the parties. Abovementioned judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents also propound the view that the remand orders are not to be interfered with. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that the respondents claim to be possession‑holders of Ihatas in dispute since long having constructed their houses thereon. Learned Commissioner vide impugned order has directed the Deputy Commissioner to visit the site and verify as to' who was in the physical possession at the spot before 1988 and thereafter to make the allotment in accordance with the instructions issued by the Board of Revenue. Impugned order is fair and just as learned Commissioner has appointed a responsible Officer for spot inspection and holding of inquiry for determination of the rights of the parties in accordance with the Rules on the ; subject. The petitioners were alleged to have obtained allotment of the Ihatas in question through Sanads obtained by fraud. The eligibility and entitlement could be verified by the Government under sections 6 and 10 of the Punjab Jinnah Abadis for Non‑Proprietors in Rural Areas Act III of 1986. The Commissioner was competent to decide the controversy sent to him for adjudication by the Government.

7. The application submitted by respondents Nos.2 to 5 was addressed to Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore (Punjab Local Government), copy of which is at pages 31 to 36 of this petition. Said application was entertained' and vide Letter No.11‑93/71‑H(IV) (copy at page 37 of this petition) to Commissioner, Multan Division, whereby power available to the Government under section 10(2) of the aforesaid Act were delegated to him for deciding the is petition under subsection (3) of section 10 after hearing the parties and examination of the record. This communication clearly indicates that Commissioner Multan was fully authorized to decide the dispute under section 10 of the Act on behalf of the Government. The objection of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Commissioner was not competent under section 10 of the Act to decide the petition of respondents Nos.2 to 5 stands completely answered by the abovesaid letter. Since the Commissioner was authorized to decide the application of the said respondents under section 10 of the aforementioned Act, therefore, no objection regarding his competency is 'available to the petitioners.

8. Deputy Commissioner, Khanewal has yet to decide the matter in the light of the impugned remand order after spot inspection, considering the evidence to be produced before him and hearing the parties. The impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity calling for interference by this Court in the exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./1‑20/L Petition dismissed