2014 PLP 130 (CLC)

AYESHA A. MALIK, J.

Through this petition, the petitioner prays that letter No.476-W/872 dated 23-4-1970 issued by the respondent No.2 returning the ownership of land in question to the petitioner be implemented.

2. The case of the petitioner is that his predecessor Sodagar Ali (now deceased) along with the pro forma respondents are owners of land measuring 1068 Kanals and 8 Marlas situated in Village Kul, Tehsil and District Sialkot. The land was acquired by the Government of Punjab vide Notification No.911 G.S dated 24-8-1916 for the benefit of the Railway Department. Compensation was received by the predecessor of the petitioner and the pro forma respondents at that time. The land was left vacant and the Railway Department did not utilize it. Hence the purpose of the acquisition was finished. The predecessor of the petitioner along with other owners remained in possession of the land and cultivated it. They received letter dated 23-4-1970 wherein it was stated that since the land was no longer required by the Railway Department, it should be relinquished in favour of the original owner at the original cost of the land. On the basis of the said letter, Writ Petition No.789 of 1990 was filed seeking a direction that the land be returned to the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of on 4-7-2000 with the observation that the petitioner can approach Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot and file an application before him or if any such application had already been filed, then it should be decided in accordance with law within a period of three months. After this order, application was moved by the petitioner on 27-2-2012 seeking return of the land at the original price in terms of the aforementioned letter of 1970. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the original representation dated 7-9-2000 pursuant to the order dated 4-7-2000 has still not been decided. A fresh application was moved on 27-2-2012 and that respondent No.1 should decide the same pertaining to the proprietary rights of the petitioner.

3. Learned Law Officer argued that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 4-7-2000 passed in Writ Petition No.789 of 1990, no representation was filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.1 and no representation was pending before him at the time. He argued that the land was acquired by respondent No.1 and the landowners were duly compensated which included the predecessor of the petitioner. Despite the same, the predecessor of the petitioner and now the petitioner are illegally in occupation of the land. As such, they enjoy no right or title on the said land yet they are in illegal possession of the same. He further agued that an application was moved by some people in relation to this land before the Member Board of Revenue. The Member Board of Revenue requested respondent No.1 for issuance of NOC with respect to the land and whether respondent No.1 wanted to surrender the same in favour of the applicants. Respondent No.1 vide his Letter No.469/W/150/84 dated 1-2-1987 declined and stated that it did not want to surrender the land. He argued that the petitioner was not entitled to the return of the land. He argued that his reliance on the letter dated 23-4-1970 is grossly hit by laches and in any event, the petitioner has exhausted his remedy before the Administrative Civil Judge, Sialkot by filing a suit on the same issue which was dismissed on 28-2-1974.

4. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance primarily on the letter of 23-4-1970 as well as on the representation filed pursuant to the order of this Court dated 4-7-2000. He argued that since the purpose for the acquisition no longer existed, then in terms of Rule 14(2) of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, the petitioner was entitled to the return of the land at the original price.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and reviewed the record available on the file.

6. The main issue in this petition is whether the petitioner has a right with respect to the return of the land in dispute on the basis of the letter dated 23-4-1970. The said letter was issued by Vice-Chairman, Engineering of Pakistan Western Railway in favour of the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot. It provides that the Railway land measuring 133.541 acres in Village Kul Tehsil and District Sialkot may be relinquished in favour of the original owners. Admittedly since the issuance of the letter to date, the predecessor of the petitioner and now the petitioner continue to enjoy possession of the land in dispute despite having received the compensation for the acquisition. After forty-two years from the issuance of the letter of 1970, the petitioner seeks implementation of the said letter. Learned Law Officer on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2 submitted that respondent No.2 does not want to surrender the land. A review of the Writ Petition No.789 of 1990 filed by the petitioner and others reveals that at the time, the petitioner prayed for return of the land on the basis of the same letter. In the reply filed by the Deputy Commissioner Sialkot, it was provided that Pakistan Railway did not want to surrender the land which was communicated to the Collector, Sialkot vide letter dated 1-2-1987. Similarly, in the reply filed by the Railway Department, in the said writ petition, it was stated that the petitioner at the time having encroached upon the government land was ejected from the land on 25-11-1989 and no letter for relinquishment was issued to the petitioner. The letter was sent to one Mehr Din and not to the petitioner. The reply also provides that a suit was filed by the petitioner at the time, which was dismissed on 28-2-1974. Based on the admitted facts and the documents relied upon by the petitioner, the petitioner has no right to the property. The letter of 23-4-1970 does not create a right in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner has already agitated against the said letter through Writ Petition No.789 of 1990. The order of 4-7-2000 required the petitioner to file a representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot. There is no such application available on the record to show that the same was filed or was pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a representation was filed and he has referred to Annexure-C at Page

23. However, this application does not have any diary number on it or receiving to show that it was received by the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot. Furthermore, it was filed by one Barkat Ali and not by the petitioner.

7. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Rule 14 of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983. Rule 14(2) of the said Rules provides for the return of acquired land to the owners at the discretion of the government where the project has been abandoned. The respondent No.1 stated in Writ Petition No.789 of 1990 and again in the instant petition that it does not want to surrender the land. There is nothing on the record to show that the respondent No.1 does not require the land. The petitioner relies upon the letter of 23-4-1970 to assert his claim.

8. In order to avail the benefit of constitutional jurisdiction, the petitioner must show that he is aggrieved. "A person aggrieved must be a man, who has suffered a legal grievance, against whom a decision has been pronounced, which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully affected his title to something"

1. Therefore, an aggrieved person is one who has suffered a legal wrong. As such the petitioner has not suffered any legal wrong, nor has he been denied something he is legally entitled to. Through Writ Petition No.789 of 1990, the petitioner agitated the same matter in issue. After the order of 4-7-2000, the petitioner should have moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot. He should have pursued his claim in a diligent manner. Without having done any of the aforementioned, the petitioner cannot now claim that he is aggrieved. There is nothing to support the fact that he vigilantly pursued his claim in terms of order dated 4-7-2000. The length of the delay involved in his case and the conduct of the petitioner both support the fact that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person. Therefore, the petitioner has no right on the basis of letter dated 23-4-1970 nor is he an aggrieved person under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

9. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is dismissed with no order as to cost. MAK/M-282/L Petition dismissed.