Muhammad Ali respondent No. 2 had sublet .The shop which is now in dispute to Muhammad Rafiq long back. The Collector Sheikhupura had in 1972 regularised the possession of Muhammad Rafiq, who had been regularly paying/depositing rent as fixed by the Treasury. On promulgation of Martial Law, respondents No. 2 and his son respondent No. 1 through the intervention of Martial Law Authority obtained ouster of the petitioner and their own substitution. Such intervention and ouster has been objected to by the petitioner by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
2. This petition was admitted for hearing on 27-3-1978 and the respondents were served but none of them has turned up to contest the petition. There is a report from the Collector on record which explains the nature of the possession of Muhammad Rafiq and the interest that was earlier claimed by Muhammad Ali respondent No. 2.
3. As the claim of the petitioner is not contested and this was entirely a matter within the domain of the Collector of the District, it being a superstructure on the State land, the Army Authorities could not intervene nor could respondents 1 and 2 derive any interest through the Army Authorities. If at all they had any grievance they should have gone to the Collector or officers higher in rank to him as designated in the Colonization of Government Lands Act. That having not been done, the interference and ouster of the petitioner is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The petition is allowed and it is directed that petitioner shall be restored to possession of the shop by respondents 1 and 2 and the Collector shall see that this order is implemented within reasonable time. No order as to costs.