2007 PLP 345 (MLD)

MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.

This judgment proposes to decide four Constitutional petitions, one in hand and the other (Writ Petition No.4043 of 2006, Writ Petition No.4044 of 2006 and Writ Petition No.4045 of 2006) as all these petitions raise similar questions of law/facts, canvass similar controversy, require, alike adjudication and arc directed against the same set of the respondents. All these petitions seek a direction to respondent No.2 to decide their respective cases pending before him, expeditiously.

2. Succinctly, facts relevant for disposal of all these petitions, as deciphered from these files, are that the writ petitioners claimed themselves to be allottees in possession of Provincial Government Land situated in Chak No.1/R-H, Tehsil Kaloor Kot District Bhakkar, since 1979-1980 under Lease Cultivation Scheme. They claimed that at the time of lease in their favour the land in their respective possession was uncultivable being "Banjar Qadeem and they expanded a huge amount from their own expense to make it cultivable, as per policy of the Board of Revenue, Punjab. They also claimed that they had regularly been paying lease money rent upto 2001 with 20% interest. It is the case of all the writ petitioners that they distinctly applied to respondent No.3 for grant of proprietary rights of the land in their respective possession as per notification, dated 20-4-1983 but the prayer was declined vide order, dated 13-2-1984 by the then Collector of District Bhakkar.

3. Writ petitioners moved review applications before the Collector on 17-12-1988 who opined that his earlier order is not well-based because the report of the Revenue Field Staff, was incorrect and he accordingly remitted the files to the then Commissioner, Sargodha Division for approval of review of order passed by his predecessor. It was contended on behalf of the writ petitioners that their cases arc pending with the D.O. (R) but no decision has so far been taken by him, in spite of lapse of two decades though he is statutorily obliged to decide the matter, one way or the other, according to the prevalent law. It was emphasized that according to the different schemes announced by the Government of the Punjab, all the writ petitioners are entitled to conferment of proprietary rights, which are being delayed out of colourful exercise of powers. Discriminatory treatment to the petitioners was also made basis for invocation of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.

4. Having heard the case and perused the record, it became' apparent that stance canvassed in this petition rested on disputed factual controversy, requiring determination through detailed inquiry/recording A of evidence but such exercise cannot be undertaken while discharging jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of this country, These canons have already attained finality through consistent judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, right from the case of The Province of East Pakistan v. Kshiti Dhar Roy and others (PLD 1964 SC 636) upto date, including the case of Muhammad Younas Khan and others v. Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary Forest and others (1993 SCMR 618). In spite of this Constitutional handicap it is obvious that the respondent No.2 is a statutory functionary, and his sphere of authority is fixed by a framework given by law under which he is working. It is not imaginable that respondent. No.2 would flout his limits of authority in a colourful manner, by not deciding the applications of the petitioners. Even otherwise this is minimum which a citizen expects B of a statutory functionary that a cause/matter brought before him should be decided at the earliest, in accordance with law. Therefore, respondent No.2 is accordingly directed to decide the cases of all the petitioners expeditiously through a speaking order, after hearing them. It will be appreciated if all those matters are disposed of according to the law applicable, within a period of 6 months. Respondent No.2 will take remedial steps on the basis of his own inquiry/findings, without being influenced by the instant order. With these directions, all the petitions, noted above, are accordingly disposed of. Writ Petitions Disposed of. H.B.T./M-657/1?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.