Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 603 to 605 and 994 of 1981, decided on 10th November 1981.

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑

‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal ‑ Claim of petitioners be lessees seriously disputed even in High Court and petitioners alleged to have forged documents to show themselves as lessees ‑ Genuineness of allotment, held, not open to scrutiny and decision in constitutional jurisdiction‑As regards disposal of pending applications High Court, held further, rightly remarked that in absence of copies of such applica tions on record no opinion could be expressed thereon and in case of respondent not deciding their applications they could approach higher revenue authorities but could not maintain petition in hand without first establishing their entitlement to grant of lease and extension thereof in respect of land in dispute‑Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 10).

Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C. P. S. L. As. Nos. 603 to 605 of 1981).

M. A. Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court with Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Syed Niaz Ali Shah, Advocate Supreme Court with Inayat Hussain Shah,

Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C. P. S. L. A. No. 994 of 1981).

Date of hearing: 10th November 1981.

J‑The petitioners who number two hundred and seventy‑two in all seek by four separate petitions for leave to appeal against the judgments of Lahore High Court whereby the constitutional petitions filed by them were dismissed.

2. The petitioners claimed to be lessees of Government land under ten years scheme promulgated under section 10 of the Colonization of Govern ment Lands (Punjab) Act of 1912 since 1966 and on that account sought extension of the lease for anther period of five years on the strength of Colony Department's policy' letter dated 25‑5‑1976. Instead of extending the lease the authorities of the Colonies Department according to them, wanted to oust them from the land. Their claim failed in the High Court on the twin grounds that the policy of extension or conferment of proprietary rights on such tenants expressly excluded the Cholistan area allotees and that a copy of the application which had remained unattended with the authorities and whose proper disposal was sought by them had not been filed.

3. It appears that claim of the petitioners to be lessees was seriously disputed even in the High Court. It was alleged that they had forged the documents in order to show themselves as the lessees of the land. The grievance of the petitioners, on the other hand, is that no adjudication as such has taken place at any stage whatsoever though a number of controverted questions of fact were involved, including the one of genuineness of leases.

4. In Constitutional jurisdiction the genuineness of allotment could not be subjected to scrutiny and decision. As regards disposal of pend ing applications the learned Judge in the High Court remarked as follows:‑

"Learned counsel did not place on record copies of those petition moved by them to the Collector for disposal. In the absence where of it is not possible to give any opinion in regard there to. If the submission of the learned counsel is correct that respondent No. 3 is not deciding the applications of the petitioners, they may approach the higher revenue authorities in that regard but cannot maintain this petition without first establishing their entitlement to the grant of lease and extension thereof in respect of the land situated ii Cholistan area."

5. In the absence of any such document on record and non‑disclosure of the exact date when such applications were filed no specific direction could be given. The order impugned before us suffers from no legal infirmity. Leave to appeals is, therefore, refused.

Leave to appeal refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.