Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.1906 of 1987, decided on 13th July, 1987.

---Art.199--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Limitations- Controversial matters in respect of ownership of property raised in constitutional petition required recording of evidence--Such matters, held, could not be decided in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.

---Art.199--Constitutional petition--Locus standi of petitioners to invoke--Petitioners, whether aggrieved persons--Land in dispute selected by Government for building school neither vested in petitioners nor was in their possession--Petitioners not at all being aggrieved persons within meaning of Art.199 held, had no locus standi to invoke constitutional jurisdiction.--[Locus standi].

Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust P L D 1969 S C 223; Salahuddin v. Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Ltd. P L D 1975 SC 244; Anjuman-e-Ahmadiya Sargodha v. The Deputy Commissioner Sargodha P L D 1966 S C 639 and Labh Singh etc. v. Ahmad Shah etc. A I R 1927 Lah. 11 ref.

Mian Nisar Ahmad for Petitioners.

Ch. Khurshid Ahmad for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 13th July, 1987.

The petitioners, Ch.Abdul Majeed Khalid and 22 others, have moved this Constitutional petition against the respondents praying therein that the action of the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Kasur, respondent No.1, may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect and further that the said respondent be directed to act strictly in accordance with law and to build a Girls Primary School on the Government available land.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land in question measuring one Kanal comprising Khasra No.8277 is being used by the petitioners as Junj/Funeral Ghar, since centuries. Learned counsel states that the Government of the Punjab has reserved a sum of Rs.1,08,000 for building a school in Pucca Qilla, Kasur, and that a place of land measuring 2 Kanals 18 Marlas comprising Khasra No.8331 in the same locality is lying vacant anti is in the ownership of the Provincial Government. According to learned counsel, the aforesaid land could be utilized for building a school. It is contended forcefully that the petitioners are the co-sharers of the Khasra number in dispute and unless and until the land in question is acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and compensation is paid to the petitioners, the said land cannot be resumed and cannot be utilized for the purposes of building a school. The learned counsel maintained that the petitioners are in possession of the disputed property and they are using the same for parking their vehicles apart from using it as Junj/Funeral Ghar.

3. In the case a report with parawise comments was summoned from the respondents and accordingly the parawise comments have been submitted by respondent No.1. It has been disclosed in the parawise comments that the land in question comprising Khasra No.8277 measuring one kanal and three marlas is a suitable place for the construction of a school building as the same is lying vacant and also that the said land is adjacent to Masjid Khajoorwali. Regarding the other place of land bearing Khasra No.8331, it has been reported that the area of this Khasra No. is in fact a graveyard of the Muslims and Christians and is a neglected place. It is submitted in the report that the people of the entire locality, except a few persons, demand that a school building be raised on the area of Khasra No.8277. In the report it has been stated that the City Magistrate has also submitted his report which also suggested that school building be raised on Khasra No.8277. Lastly it has been stated in the report that there is no other better place available for the construction of the proposed school except the land in Khasra No.8277. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners have got no locus standi to raise the objection in constructing the school building on Khasra No.8277 on the ground that the petitioners have got nothing to do with the same. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are not owners of the land in question. It is next submitted that controversial matters have been raised in the writ petition and that this factual controversy cannot be resolved in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel forcefully, submitted that the writ petitioners had an adequate remedy under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act and they could file a suit before the Civil Court. The controversy in the case requires the recording of evidence and in the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction evidence cannot be recorded and the petitioners have failed to demonstrate as to what vested right they have got in the land in question. At the best, the writ petitioners could be the trespassers over the land and the mere fact that they park their vehicles in the land in question, will not give any right to them to raise objection in utilizing the disputed area for building a school. The learned counsel submitted that the Government has sanctioned a substantial amount of money for raising a school building at the spot. A plan has been sanctioned. Learned counsel stated that the District Authorities have submitted a report saying that the area in question is the most appropriate place for building a school. Learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on Annexure 'R/4' and has submitted that this is a copy of Jamabandi which shows the land comprising Khasra No. 8277 as Abadi Deh. Learned counsel submitted that this documentary evidence (Annexure ' R/4' :' belies the stand taken by the writ petitioners that the land in question is Shamlat Deh. Annexure 'R/3' is a report submitted by the Revenue officials disclosing that there is no agricultural land in Pucca Qilla Kasur City and further that there is no Shamlat Deh as well. It has further been reported that in the neighbouring Khasra numbers of Khasra No.8277 there is no agricultural land at all. In Annexure 'R/2' the Revenue Officials have reported that Khasra No.8277 is situated within the city and that the said area is not a Shamlat Deh. On the basis of this documentary evidence the learned counsel stated that the petitioners have got no case whatsoever in claiming the payment of compensation of the land in question.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record very carefully. I am of the view that controversial matters have been raised by the petitioners which cannot be decided in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. This, of course, requires the recording of evidence whether the petitioners are owners of the land in question or not or whether they are using the land in dispute as Junj/Funeral Ghar.

5. The respondent No.1 has denied the claim of the writ petitioners over the land in question and it is clear from the record that the petitioners have got nothing to do with the land in. question. Admittedly, they cannot claim to be the sole owners of .the land in question, nor they are in possession of the same as such. It is also established on the record that the land in question is not Shamlat land but the same is part and parcel of Kasur city. The writ petitioners cannot possibly raise any objection under any law. I am of the view that the land in question does not vest in the writ petitioners, nor the same is in their possession. The land in question was rightly selected for building a school. The Provincial Government has sanctioned a substantial amount of money for building a school over Khasra No.8277 and in this connection a plan has duly been sanctioned by the concerned authorities. The writ petitioners are not at all aggrieved persons within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution. This being so, I proceed to hold that the petition in hand is misconceived and is wholly incompetent and the petitioners have got no locus standi whatsoever to lay any claim over the land in question. The learned counsel has relied upon Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust P L D 1969 S C 223 to contend that they had personal interest in the land in question as the same is being used by them. The facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case were wholly different from the case in hand. Thus the rule laid down in the aforesaid case has no application here at all. Disputed questions of facts have been raised in the writ petition. The learned counsel relied upon Salahuddin v. Frontier Sugar Mills & Distillery Ltd. PLD 1975 SC 244 and Anjuman-e-Ahmadiya Sargodha v. The Deputy Commissioner Sargodha P L D 1966 S C 639 and has contended that the alternate remedy is not speedy, convenient, beneficial and effective. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel that disputed questions of facts have arisen in the case which facts cannot be determined unless evidence is recorded. The rule laid down in the referred cases, is, therefore, not applicable to the facts of this case. The learned counsel also relied upon Labh Singh, etc. v. Ahmad Shah etc. A I R 1927 Lahore 11 and submitted that since the petitioners are in occupation of the land in question, as such their possession is a good title against all. Again the rule laid down in the above authority has no application in the case. The case of the petitioners is that they park their vehicles at the place. This will not create any right or title for the writ petitioners. There; is nothing on the record to show that they are the owners in possession of the land in dispute.

6. I am satisfied that there is no force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners which are accordingly repelled. The land in dispute is being used for a public purpose namely, for eradication of illiteracy and this being so, the writ petitioners shall be equally the beneficiaries of the actions of the Government. They, therefore, cannot be permitted under law to thwart that act of the respondents Nos. 1 to 6, which act will decidedly be for the welfare of the public including the petitioners in the case.

7. The upshot of the above discussion is that I do not find any substance in the writ petition which is accordingly dismissed with costs.

H.B.T./A-175/L Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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