Through this Intra Court Appeal filed under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Qrdinance, 1972 (the "Ordinance", the Appellant has challenged the validity of impugned order dated 06.10.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.13239 of 2020 by the learned Single Judge (the "Impugned Order") whereby the Constitutional petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed in the following manner: "In view of the facts narrated therein factum whereof has to be affirmed in the light of the record -- no specific direction can be issued for decision of the application, claiming proprietary rights in immoveable property . It appears that land claimed is actually under the ownership of Punjab Land Commission, but application was filed with Respondent No.3. This is a novel case where no acquisition process was adopted, as mandated by Land Acquisition Act, 1894. If at all, some rights were promised or allegedly extended to the Petitioner , same may seek appropriate remedy for its enforcement".
2. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Appella nt and perused the record made available.
3. It evinces from the of impugned order that the learned Single Judge had refused to exercise discretion by giving directions on the basis of unverified assertions made by the Appellant. The jurisdiction qua mandamus being discretionary and extraordinary , is exercised in grave cases rather than in routine and such discretion is exercised in all cases where there is a specified legal right and no specific legal remedy for A enforcing such right. In order to obtain a writ or an order or direction in the nature of mandamus, the applicant has to satisfy the Court that he has a legal right towards the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition. The learned Single Judge in Chamber observed that "land claimed is actually under the ownership of Punjab Land Commission, but application was filed with Respondent No.3. This is a novel case where no acquisition process was adopted as mandated by Land Acquisition Act,1894. If at all, some rights were promised or allegedly extended to the Petitioner , same may seek appropriate remedy for its enforcement". The argument of learned counsel for the Appellant that the learned Single Judge in Chamber has not taken into consideration the facts regarding possession of Appellant over immoveable property is without any basis as the Appellant, in the constitutional petition, had made following prayer: "It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this writ may very kindly be accepted and direction may kindly be issued to the Respondents to transfe r the aforesaid property in the name of the Petitioner by way of mutation/registered deed or grant of proprietary rights, possession of which has already been given to the Petitioner in accordance with law, by deciding the application of the Petitioner which is pending adjudication before Respondent No.3".
4. From the prayer made in constitutional petition, a specific question was put to learned counsel for the Appellant that the prayer is without any legal foundation because it does not reveal under which law/rule/regulation, the Appellant is seeking transfer of property; learned counsel for the Appellant failed to tender any satisfactory reply .
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as "Asadullah Mangi and others v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and others" (2005 SCMR 445) has held in an equivocal terms that "writ is to be filed for enforcement of fundamental rights and not for entitlement of rights. If an equitable relief is sought from the Court then it can only be granted subject to the provisions of relevant law".
5. We, therefore, fully agree with the finding of the learned Single Judge who dismissed the petition being not maintainable and see no illegality or perversity in the impugned order which has been passed in line with the dictates of law and does not warrant any interference by this Division Bench.
6. Resultantly , the instant Appeal, being bereft of any force, is accordingly dismissed in limine.