1. ' ABDUL HAYEE KURESIH, ACTG. C. J.-Comments not filed. The petitioner claims to reside in hutment adjacent to Quarter No, H-9/14, in Jacob Lines, Karachi. It is stated by him that he is in occupation prior to 1972 and 1973 which we shall interpret as occupation earlier than 1972. The respondents ,are presently engaged in re-development project of the Lines Area, which also includes Jacob Lines, and for such purpose scheme 35 has been promulgated. It is the case of the petitioner that for the reason of his living in the Lines Area from the time prior to 1973, he falls within the category "A" of such scheme, so that he is entitled to allotment of a plot in the Lines area. It appears that such entitlement as claimed by the petitioner was not accepted by the respondent so that the petitioner was sought to be evicted and actually a notice under M. L. O. 130 was also issued to the petitioner.
2. Having grievance against proposed action under M. L.O. 130, the petitioner had filed a Constitution Petition before this Court bearing No, D-1087 of 1981. This petition came up before a Bench of this Court, of which one of us was a Member, and on 4-2-1982, the Advocate for the petitioner withdrew the petition, so that the same was dismissed. It is stated by Mr. Dastagir Ghazi, that the petitioner had been withdrawn because a sort of understanding had arisen between the parties out of the Court. Be that as it may the order does not reflect such state of affairs.
3. ' After the dismissal of the petition the matter was considered by some councilors or authorities of Karachi Development Authority but no relief was given to the petitioner so that he made a representation to the Tribunal constituted for examining the entitlement of person claiming that they are entitled to the plots. The said Tribunal has passed an order holding that the petitioner had failed to show that he had been occupying the but in question before 1973, and therefore, the petitioner was not categorised in "A" category but all the same he has been given a plot by the Scrutiny Committee which would be the category "B" of the Scheme of Lines.
4. ' In respect of the subject-matter of the petition, an earlier petition had been filed but dismissed as withdrawn without any condition. It is doubtful if the present petition would be maintainable unless we hold that we are hearing this petition only against the order of the appellate Tribunal.
5. ' The short question involved is in regard to the date from which the petitioner is occupying the premises within the Lines area. On that point the petitioner had produced before the Tribunal a sale agreement pertaining to the but which he was occupying. This agreement is stated to have been executed by one Mukhtar Ahmed in 1973. This agreement has not been relied on by the appellate Tribunal for the reason that it was on a plain paper. To such extent the Tribunal was perfectly within its power to refuse to act on a document which has lack of legal requisites. The petitioner had also produced some letters written to him on the address of the but in 1973. Such letters had not been produced before the Scrutiny Committee, and therefore, it seems doubtful whether the letters were genuine. Again on facts the Tribunal came to the conclusion that in 1974 the petitioner who was unmarried was living in some quarter with a relation of hers. In regard to the same year viz. 1974 the petitioner had failed to produce any Ration Card and ever for such reason, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that, in 1974 the petitioner did not own the but to which she laid her claim.
6. ' We have also examined the documents that have been placed before this Court. The first document is a letter addressed to the husband of the petitioner from the Registrar of this Court calling him for interview in the selection of Junior Clerks. No doubt this letter has been addressed to the petitioner at the place, which the petitioner claims to be living at, but to such extent the finding of fact by the Tribunal is that the petitioner was living in the house belonging to her relative, and not belonging to her. Likewise, the Birth Registration Form (Annexure "E") produced before us shows that the petitioner was living in the house in question in 1979 so that this document is of no avail.
7. Likewise the photo copy of National Registration Card also shows that the petitioner was residing in but bearing No, H-9/14, in March, 1974. In order to prove her entitlement she has to show her residence prior to the year 1972. Survey slip (Annexure "G") is also issued on 10-4-1980, and therefore, the same is not relevant. We can on such facts not find any fault with the view that the appellate Tribunal had taken action on facts. What is more that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction has rarely disturbed the findings of facts recorded, by the Tribunal after going through the evidence. There is still one more reason which dissuades us from extending relief in this case.
8. Action has been taken against the petitioner under M. L.O.
130. In these circumstances,, our jurisdiction would appear to be barred.
9. ' We see no substance in this petition, which we dismiss in limine.