1. KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, C.J.---The facts of the present writ petition in brief are that the petitioner Howaldar(R) Charagh Din got allotted land measuring 25 acres in Tehsil Fortabbas District Bahwalnagar, through G.H.Q. vide order dated 30-5-1995.The petitioner made a bargain to sell the same land in favour of Pervaiz Akhtar Abid and one Sanaullah and got the sanction of the same from Commissioner Bahawalnagar on 13-5-2000. The said Pervaiz Akhtar Abid and Sanaullah resiled from the bargain, subsequently the respondents Nos.1 & 2 Muhammad Aslam and Hashmat Ali manoeuvred mutation of oral sale in their favour on 15-10-2003, which the present petitioner challenged in the hierarcy of the revenue department before Assistant Comtnissioner, which came up to Board of Revenue and ultimately the Board of Revenue dismissed his revision petition on 13-5-2009 and thus the order of the Board of Revenue is impugned before this august Court in the present writ petition.
2. 2.The issue before me as the Chief Justice Lahore High Court is whether the writ petition on the facts mentioned in paragraph 1 ibid, can be entertained at the principal seat or the relevant Bench.
3. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that under Article 199(1)(a)(ii) the Principal seat is competent to entertain the writ petition, because the impugned order has been passed by the Member Board of Revenue who is working very much within the territorial jurisdiction of the Principal seat of the Lahore High Court. Lahore. To appreciate the submission made by the learned counsel the interpretation of the relevant provision of the same is given herein: "Declaring that any act done or proceeding taken within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court by a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a Province or a local authority has been done or taken without lawful authority and is of no legal effect."
4. The learned counsel has relied upon 1996 CLC 47 Lahore (sic). The learned counsel has also referred sub-Articles (3-A) and (3-B) of the Art.3 of the High Courts (Establishment) Order, 1970 as substituted by S.3 of High Courts Establishment Order (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance, 1981. The learned counsel by relying upon the above said provision contends that the proper place for filing this writ petition is the principal seat of the Lahore High Court.
5. 4.The learned Additional Advocate General on the other hand contends that from the facts given in the writ petition, it is clear that the dispute relates to the territorial jurisdiction of Bahawalpur Bench, inasmuch as the mutation under dispute was sanctioned in Tehsil Fortabbas by the Tehsildar, the same was challenged before Assistant Commissioner and then before the Executive District Officer (Revenue) at Bahawalnagar and only a revision petition was filed before the Board of Revenue. It is next contended that not only because the most of the impugned judgments were passed in the area of Bahawalnagar, and only revisional jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue has been exercised at Lahore, the residence of the petitioner, the land under dispute and the original and appellate, orders on the issues had been passed by the Courts of Bahawalnagar. The writ petition cannot be entertained at the Principal seat. The writ is even defective to the extent that neither the functionaries of the State, who passed the original and appellate order have been made a party nor those orders have been impugned in this writ petition. Besides, there is only one High Court in the Province of Punjab and only the benches have been established for the distribution of work according to the territorial jurisdiction of the benches. Judgment cited by the learned counsel is not relevant, in as much as in that judgment the dispute related about the jurisdiction of the two High Courts. As about the application of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the interpretation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is erroneous, in as much as the learned counsel is under the presumption that every Bench is an independent High Court, which is not at all the intention of the legislature. The learned Additional Advocate General has referred subsection (3-C) of section 3 and has stated that the Chief Justice has the power of distribution of work to the various Benches and thus concludes that the present petition is not entertainable at the principal seat.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General Punjab and have also gone through relevant Article 199 and the relevant provision of the High Courts (Establishment) Order (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance, 1981. I am duly convinced that the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner are misconceived, the writ petitioner is resident of Bahawalnagar, the land in dispute is located in District Bahawalnagar, the original mutation was sanctioned at Bahawalnagar and the appellate jurisdiction of the revenue hierarchy was also within the domain of Bahawalnagar. The proper place for filing the writ petition is the Bahawalpur Bench of the Lahore High Court. If the interpretation of the leaned counsel for the petitioner is accepted then the establishment of the benches will become useless as the head of every department of the Province of Punjab is stationed at Lahore and by impleading them as a party every petitioner will claim the maintainability of every petition against the State functionaries of the Province at the principal seat. With these observations I uphold the objection raised by the office.