' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.---Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 implications and effect of four Notifications, two of 26th of May 2005, one of 18-6-2005 and another of 29-6-2005 is sought to be assailed, which have been issued by the Government of the Punjab, Revenue Department through Secretary to the Government of the Punjab Revenue Department. These Notifications have been issued under section 6(1) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. The essence of these Notifications was to divide existing Sheikhupura District, creation of a new District namely Nankana Sahib and allocation of areas to the newly created District.- The case of the petitioner who claims to have been elected four times as Member Provincial Assembly (MPA) is that being a resident and voter of Khanqah Dogran, he like many other inhabitants of Khanqah Dogran is aggrieved of the inclusion of the Revenue Estate Khanqah Dogran in the newly created Nankana Sahib District.
2. Highlighting the background of the matter it is stated by the learned counsel that ever since the creation of Sheikhupura District, Khanqah Dogran has remained part, parcel and attached to Sheikhupura District, which is at a distance of merely half an hour drive therefrom. According to him, its inclusion and attachment with Nankana Sahib District was causing immense inconvenience and problems for the people of area. It is alleged that large-scale protests were made by the people of the area "condemning malicious and improper action of the Government to attach Tehsil Safdarabad with Nankana Sahib especially Khanqah Dogran Revenue Estate". It is contended that while taking such a decision and issuing notification to that effect the convenience sentiments and views of the local population of Khanqah Dogran were not kept in view. He has endeavored to show us with the help of a map that the people of localities were facing highly grave difficulties and even they have dissociated with the affairs to the extent that none took part in the Local Government Elections held in the recent past. Refers Nawabzada Ghazanfar Ali Gul v.
Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Revenue Department, Board of Revenue, Lahore and 3 others (1999 CLC 430) a Full Bench judgment of this court to support his contention that any such policy decision by the Government if unreasonable, unfair or mala fide can judicially be reviewed by this court in writ jurisdiction.
3. Para wise comments have been filed on behalf of the respondents opposing the maintainability of the petition. It is contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab that the matter relating to creation of a new District demarcation of boundaries of such a District, is a policy decision which falls within the lawful jurisdiction of the Government. It is contended that the majority of the population of the newly created District had welcomed such a decision and only a small section of the population of Safdarabad and Khanqah Dogran were opposed to the same. It is however, suggested that "an adequate remedy is available to the present petitioner in the form of representation before the Chief Minister Punjab."
4. It may be noted that the creation of Divisions and Districts in a Province is essentially an administrative measure falling within the ambit of statutory provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. Section 6, particularly deals with the Divisions, Districts and Subdevisions/Tehsils. Whereas subsection (1), thereof empowers the Government to divide each Division into Districts and District into Subdivision or Tehsil; subsection (2) thereof empowers the Government through Notification to 'vary the number and limit of Divisions, Districts, Sub-Divisions or Tehsils in the Province." The Notifications mentioned above purport to have been issued under these enabling provisions of the Land Revenue Act, 1967. Undoubtedly the policy decisions of such nature fall within the ambit of power of the executive Government which is expected to take such decisions keeping in view large many considerations, i,e, public interest administrative, practical convenience and difficulties of the local population etc. The Full Bench of this court had in Nawabzada Ghazanfar Ali Gul v.
Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Revenue Department, Board of Revenue, Lahore and 3 others (supra) observed that "We should not be understood as laying down as a rule of them as if a notification issued by the Provincial Government under section 6 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, and under subsection (5) of section 6 and section ,7 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, '1979, are immune from being called in question. The power of judicial review is available in appropriate cases of infraction of law or unfairness, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or mala fides on the part of the Government. In the facts and circumstances of the present cases no exception can be taken to the validity of the impugned notifications. The areas excluded from District Jhelum and re-included in District Gujrat had throughout remained a part of District Gujrat since times immemorial. It was considered to be in the public interest to keep the areas of Sarai Alamgir Sub-Division as a part of District Gujrat." We are conscious of the limitations and constraints of writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 that such details which have their genesis in factual appraisal of the respective assertions of the parties cannot be pried. Though embarking upon inquiries into such disputed questions of facts is not ordinarily undertaken by this Court yet at the same time we are constrained to observe that all such measures must have one thing supreme, which is, public good, the interest and welfare of the people for the betterment of whom the laws are made and administration functions. From the parawise comments it is discernible that the respondent/Government is prepared to consider such grievance, if a representation is made to that effect. The statutory functionary who has issued these notifications is respondent No,2. It is he, who is expected to perform his functions and discharge duties strictly in accordance with law. Respondent No,2, is Senior Member, Board of Revenue Punjab who by virtue of his office is Secretary to the Government of the Punjab Revenue Department as, well. We entertain no doubt whatsoever that the said statutory functionary holding such a senior position, if approached will not be in a position to consider such grievances objectively and redress the same in accordance with law in a just, fair and reasonable manner.
' We would, therefore, instead of relegating the petitioner to any other authority remit the matter to respondent No,2 to consider the same by affording opportunity of representation/hearing to all concerned, which exercise may preferably be undertaken within three months.
' The petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.