' AJMAL MIAN, J.-This High Court Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11th January, 1981 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in Writ Petition No, 17/78 dismissing the above petition. The appellant being aggrieved by the judgment has filed the present appeal. The above appeal was admitted on the ground, whether a Single Judge could hear a writ petition challenging the action of the Colonization Officer. However, on 25th May, 1982 the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Niaz Ahmed Khan has raised an objection as to maintainability of the above appeal on the ground that as under the Colonization Act read with Scheme a right of appeal had been provided and, therefore. No High Court appeal is competent under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance/Act. The parties were directed to file affidavits containing a statement of the fact. Whether factually any appeal was filed against the action impugned in the aforesaid Writ Petition. Petitioner has not filed affidavit in pursuance of the above order, though the respondent No, 1 has filed the same, stating therein that in fact an appeal was filed by the petitioner.
(a) Mr. Mushtaq Memon, learned counsel for the appellants has made the following two submissions :-
(i) That a learned Single Judge could not have heard the petition as it was a D. B. Matter.
(ii) That the present High Court Appeal is competent as in the Writ Petition, no particular order was challenged but action of treating the land as Colonization land was impugned in pursuance of the Sukkur Barrage (Validation of Orders) Act, 1974.
(b)As regard to the first contention we are inclined to hold that since the appellants had not raised the above plea before the learned Single Judge, who heard the petition, it is not open for the appellants to urge this point before us. Even otherwise, there is no provision in the relevant law providing that particular matters are to be heard by a Division Bench. Each Judge of a High Court enjoys same jurisdiction. But under internal arrangement of the High Court certain matters are assigned to a Single Judge and certain matters to D. Bs., barring an lntra-Court Appeal, which is to be heard by a D. B. Because of the provision in section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance/Act.
Reference can be made in this regard to the case of Shamsuddin v. Capt. Gohar Ayub, in which it was held that all the powers vested in the High Court of West Pakistan were also vested in each Judge of the High Court in respect of the whole area of the High Court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, no material was placed before us on the basis of which it could be concluded that the above petition should have been heard by a Division Bench.
(c) As regard to the second contention of Mr. Mushtaq Memon, we have noticed that in the Writ Petition the prayer of the petitioner was as follows :- "(a) Declare that the respondent No, 3 and his subordinate has committed an illegality in treating the land mentioned in the petition to be the Barrage land and further declare that the suit land having been treated as an Evacuee property by the competent authority cannot be treated as non-evacuee by the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 without a declaration from the Custodian.
(b) Further declare that the petitioner by purchasing the land for consideration through a registered sale-deed from Raja Ghulam Muhammad has got vested rights in the property which cannot be taken away by the respondents.
(c) Restrain the respondents from dealing with the suit land and from interfering with the possession of the petitioner of the suit land
(d) Cost of the petitioner should be borne by the respondents.
(e) Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper."
' It may be observed that the appellant had in the aforesaid writ petition impugned the action of treating the suit land as barrage land by the Colonization Department. It seems that during the arguments before the learned Single Judge a reference was made to the Sukkur Barrage (Validation of Order) Act, 1974. But the above contention was repelled and it was observed that the vires of the above Act could not be pressed into service as the Fundamental Rights were not in force at the relevant time.
2. Mr. Niaz Ahmed has referred to the case of Muhammad Ibrahim and two others v. Province of Punjab in which it was held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan while declining to grant leave to appeal, that no Intra Court appeal was competent against the judgment of a learned Single Judge passed in exercise of writ jurisdiction, as an order passed under Colonization of Government Land Punjab Act, 1912 is appealable, and Revision and Review are also provided. It cannot be denied that treatment of the suit land as Barrage Land could have been assailed through an appeal, before the Colonization Authority under the Colonization Act, and the scheme framed thereunder. It is the case of the respondents that in fact respondent had filed an appeal though it was described as a representation. Be that as it may, the appellant was also given an opportunity to file an affidavit for stating as to whether he has filed an appeal or not, which opportunity he failed to avail of.
3. In our view the present appeal is not competent and therefore, it is dismissed with no order as to costs. PLD 1965 SC 496 1982 SCM R 11831 2 1 2