1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.--The petitioners seek special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Baluchistan, Quetta, dated 5th of November, 1980, by which Constitutional Petition No. 158 of 1980 was dismissed.
2. The petitioners claimed to be the purchasers of the disputed land from Sardar Qadirdad Khan under an agreement of sale dated 3rd of March, 1970. Earlier to this agreement, they pleaded that they were in cultivation posses--sion of toe land, and on the promulgation of Martial Law Regulation No. 117, the disputed land, situate under the command of Pat Feeder Canal, was resumed on 20th of June, 1972. The petitioners averred that they bled applications under paragraph 6 of the Regulation for the allotment of this land on the basis that they were its tenants.
3. However, in the enquiry held under Para. 6 (1) (b) of the Regulation, respondents 2 to 12 were found to be in cultivating possession of the land before the commencement of the Regulation and were, accordingly, granted this land. It may be here relevant to mention that no application was filed by the petitioners for the grant of the land under Para. 7 of the Regulation on the basis that they held it as owners. Further, as held by the Member, Board of Revenue, Baluchistan, in appeal No. 1489/BR/MLR/117, the application for the grant of the land under Para. 6 was only made by Began who is not one of the petitioners, and the names of Jafar and Sumandar were subsequently manipulated ; and not only the appeal of Began was dismissed but it was also held that the other two had no right of appeal as they had not filed the required applications.
4. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that although the petitioners had applied for the transfer of the land yet their request was not considered. In this respect the learned counsel referred-us to the receipts of the applications filed by Khan Muhammad, the father of petitioner No. 10, Rehmatullah ; and two other petitioners Jafar and A.I Muhammad, but the others whose receipts had been filed are not petitioners before us. As after the resumption of land, the petitioners took forcible possession of it the respon--dents 3 to 12, the grantees of the land applied for their ejectment and conse--quently, the Tehsildar, Dera Murad Jamali, issued notices dated 17th of June, 1980, to them to vacate the land. The petitioners filed the aforementioned Constitutional Petition to challenge their ejectment pursuant to these notices.
5. The High Court, in para. 7 of the judgment, held that the land in dispute was owned by Sardar Qadirdad Khan and that on the promulga--petition of Martial Law Regulation No. 117 on 18th of March, :972, it vested in the government, free from all encumbrances ; and that it stood resumed under Para. 5 of the Regulation. As for the sale agreement, the High Court held that as the original document was not produced in court it was suspicious as to when it was executed and, therefore, its authenticity was doubtful. Even if the date of the execution that is 30th of March, 1970, be taken as correct, nonetheless the petitioners can have no legal right under it as they did not file any application under Paragraph 7 of the Regulation and, therefore, their claim on that basis stood foreclosed. However, in regard to their assertion that they were in cultivating possession of the disputed land, this claim has not been accepted by the Land Reforms Officer who has, on the other hand, accepted the rights of respondents 3 to 12 as to their being in cultivating possession of it at the commencement of the Regula--petition. The High Court further held that the petitioners had taken illegal possession of the land and that the ejectment proceedings were in order as under Rule 19, framed under Paragraph 15 (c), they could be served with notices to vacate the land within 30 days ; and that these notices were issued pursuant to a letter of the Secretary, Baluchistan Land Commission, addressed to the Collector, Nasirabad, for taking action in the matter. As a corollary to this finding, the High Court also held that as they were not found to be in cultivating possession of the land before its resumption, they were not even entitled to 80 days' notice under paragraph 5
(2) read with Rule 19 of the Regulation, and in any case, the notices do provide the aforementioned period for the vacation of the land.
6. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the notices of ejectment were illegal as after its resumption and subsequent allotment no power was left with any authority under the Regulation for the ejectment of the petitioners. This contention appears to be misconceived for in that even the petitioners should have challenged it before an officer in the high hierarchy anti not having done that the Constitutional Petition was prematurely filed. Even otherwise, as the petitioners failed to establish their right in the Aland as tenants; they had no locus standi to continue in possession of the land and the power to eject is implied in the Regulation as otherwise the grantees would not be able to fulful the terms of the grant- as prescribed in Para. 6 (6) and would be liable for ejectment under Para. 15 (c) and the Rules framed thereunder. In Fenton v. Hampton (11 Moo P C C 347) it was held:- "Whenever anything is authorised and especially if, as matter of duty, required to be done by law, and is found impossible to do that thing la unless something else not authorised in express terms be also done, then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment."
7. Accordingly, the petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.