P L D 1968 Lahore 921 (PLP)

ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑

This petition relates to land situate in the area of Gudu Barrage falling within Sukkur District in the Khairpur Division. The land had been allotted to the peti tioners by the Colonisation Officer, Sukkur, on the 8th of October 1964, but subsequently it was cancelled by another Colonisation Officer on the 1st of August 1966. The petitioners went up in appeal to the Director of the Gudu Barrage Project, but their appeal was dismissed on the 14th of September 1966, and their revision petition was also dismissed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, by his order date! the 7th of February 1968.

2. The first question which arises in this case is whether this petition should have been instituted at Karachi in accordance with the assignment of areas ordered by the learned Chief Justice acting under paragraph 4 (a) of the High Court of West Pakistan Establishment Order, 1955. In the notification issued on the 14th of October 1955 it was directed that "the Benches of the High Court of West Pakistan functioning at Karachi anal Peshawar, respectively, shall deal with the work of the High Court of the areas noted against their names and for this purpose all cases, appeals and other proceedings pertaining to the areas specified against each Bench and entertainable by the High Court, may be instituted before that Bench." Against Karachi Bench the entry is "The Capital of the Federation, Khairpur Division and Hyderabad Division". Ordinarily, therefore, the present petition should have been instituted at Karachi as it pertains to an area comprised in the Khairpur Division. It is, however, sub mitted by Mr. Hafeez‑ur‑Rahman that the final order having been passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, with his headquarters at Lahore, the Bench at Lahore has jurisdiction to entertain this matter. In support of this con tention, the learned counsel has referred us to Muhammad Nagin v. Haji Nawab Khan arid others (P L D 1962 Lah.722), Deputy Managing Director, National Bank of Pakistan and others v. Ataul Haq (P L D 1965 S C 201) and Shamsuddin v. Capt. Gauhar Ayub and another (PLD 1965 SC 496).

3. The first‑mentioned case does not appear to support the submission made by Mr. Hafeez‑ur‑Rahman. On page 727 of the report it was observed that the case relating to Campbell pur District had to be heard by the High Court Bench at Peshawar as the district in question had been assigned to that Bench by the Chief Justice. It was further observed that as no formal order of transfer had been made in that case, it could not be disposed of by a Judge of the Lahore Bench of the High Court. However, having said so, the learned Judge, who delivered the judgment of the Full Bench, went on to state that as the only action taken in that case was the issuing of notices to respondents Nos. 1 and 2, that action was not one which affected jurisdiction, but was at the most irregular and the irregularity was curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It would be seen that this judgment does not lay down that cases relating to areas assigned to the other Benches can or should be heard at Lahore.

4. In Deputy Managing Director, National Bank of Pakistan and others v. Ataul Haq their Lordships were considering the question of jurisdiction vesting in the East Pakistan High Court in respect of a matter which affected the functioning of the Central Board of Directors of the National Bank of Pakistan with its headquar ters at Karachi, and they observed that as the matter related to the Central Board at Karachi, the High Court of East Pakistan could not have issued a writ in that case. Now, in the instant case the High Court of West Pakistan has jurisdiction over the entire Province of West Pakistan as laid down by their Lordships in Shamsuddin v. Capt. Gauhar Ayub and another and, therefore, it is not a question of any Bench of this Court suffering from want of jurisdiction in the matter before us. The question in fact is of administrative convenience and arrange ment as ordered under paragraph 4 of the High Court of West Pakistan Establishment Order, 1955. It seems to us that once the distribution of work has been ordered by the Chief justice in respect of various Benches of this Court, there must be overriding considerations if a departure is to be made A from that distribution and assignment of areas. It is open to the Chief Justice to order transfer of a case from one Bench to another if he deems proper, but ordinarily the Benches would not entertain cases pertaining to other areas. In the present case we see no justification whatsoever for departing from the assignment of areas ordered by the Chief Justice in the noti fication of 1955, to which reference has already been made, simply for the reason that the last order has been made by an officer who is located at Lahore. The dispute relates to land situate in Khairpur Division, the parties reside in that Division and all the officers, except the Member, Board of Revenue, who have dealt with the case, have their headquarters in that Division. The case thus clearly relates to an area falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the Karachi Bench of this Court and must be placed before that Bench.

5. For the foregoing reasons we direct that the petition be returned to the petitioners for presentation to the Karachi Bench. Order accordingly. Petition returned.