1. ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, C.J.--The facts in the above two Petitions are of identical pattern and the points of law are the same. We, therefore, propose to dispose of both the petitions by a single order.
2. ' In C.P. No,D-984/1982, which has been filed by Mst. Fatima, she has sought the following reliefs:-
(1) Declare that the orders passed by the respondent No,l cancelling the allotment of the allotted Mst. Azizain to be without lawful authority being contrary to the principles of ,natural justice and without jurisdiction;
(2) Declare that the suit land being private property of the petitioner cannot be treated as Government land and, therefore, cannot be disposed of as barrage land by the Barrage Department.
(3) Direct the respondents Nos.2 and 3 not to dispose of the suit land as barrage land.
(4) Grant costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner.
(5) Any other relief in favour of the petitioner may be granted, which this Honorable Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. ' The fact, as alleged by the petitioner are that she purchased agricultural land admeasuring about 167 Acres from Mst. Azizan wife of Hashim Ali. She claims that the purchase was by a registered sale-deed. It seems the land in question stood on the revenue records as Naqabuli land. In such regard, even the Petition states that the respondent No,1 passed orders for cancellation of the allotment of this land. It seems this land was proposed to be disposed of two local Haris, and such an advertisement was made in the local Press at Badin. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner came up with the present petition. It is now stated that the land in question has, in fact, been transferred to some local Haris, and, in that set of circumstances, a prayer was made for amendment of the petition, which was granted. As amended petition has been filed.
4. ' We had called for the comments from respondent No,1. Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Memon has also appeared before us. In the comments, it is stated that the allotment in the name of Mst. Azizan, the person who allegedly sold the land to the present petitioner, was managed by the husband of the present petitioner. It is stated that Mst. Azizan is, in fact, not existing. The comments further state that Rehabilitation Record had been scrutinised, and the same did not even show Mst. Azizan as a claimant. The respondent has chosen to call the husband of the present petitioner as "the professionalism", who had managed the alleged/fake entry in the record of rights in the name of Mst. Azizan with the collusion of the Tapedar and the Head Munshi. The Deputy Commissioner states that a huge area of State land was mutated in favour of Mst. Azizan by making fake ante- dated entries, although the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 had been repealed. It is further stated, in the comments, that, before cancelling the entry, showing Mst. Azizan as the owner, a notice was published, but Mst. Azizan did not appear. It may also be stated that, in the comments, it was shown that, in spite of the land being set for disposal in an open Kutchery, 'Ist.Azizan, or the present petitioner, or, her husband did not make an appearance. It would seem that after making a full enquiry, the Revenue Authorities have come to the conclusion that the entries in the record-of- rights were lake entries. This is eminently a finding of fact, which has been arrived at by the Revenue Authorities by a reference to their records and the records of the Rehabilitation Department. A photo stat copy of the Parch Taqseem (Khatoon) has been produced before us, and, when we asked Mr.Muhammad Ali Shaikh why this document had not been produced before the Revenue Authorities he was not able to make any satisfactory reply. .
5. ' In the light of the circumstances that the Rehabilitation Record does not show Mst.Azizan as a claimant, it would appear that this document was, perhaps, withheld at the time of enquiry.
6. ' The learned Advocate has attempted to persuade us to enter into questions of fact and determine his entitlement in these proceedings.
7. ' It cannot be overlooked that he has neither made a demand for justice nor appeared before the Deputy Commissioner. what is more that he has a statutory right of appeal and revision before the Divisional Commissioner, and then the Provincial' Board of Revenue. He has not even utilized these remedies. In our view, the failure to" avail statutory remedies is, by itself, a good ground for declining relief in this case.
8. ' We must observe that Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh attempted to raise an argument that the order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner as a Settlement Authority, and not a Revenue Officer. This contention must be repelled, for the Deputy Commissioner has taken action only for the purpose of disposal of land to local Harts and for correction of errors in the record of rights. In both the spheres, he acts as a Deputy Commissioner, and not as Settlement authority. Clearly alternate remedy is available before the Revenue Authorities.
9. ' Without adverting to the merits of this case in regard to entitlement, we dismiss this petition for the reason that neither the petitioner has made a demand of justice from the Deputy Commissioner nor has he availed the statutory remedies. Petition is dismissed in limine.