' This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, whereby Muhammad Bakhsh, petitioner, wants this Court to declare orders, dated 26-11-1968, 10-11-1968, 23-11-1965 and 27-7-1966 passed by respondents Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6, respectively, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading up to this petition in brief are that Muhammad Bakhsh, petitioner, was a member of Co-operative Farming Society Limited of Chak No, 194/E.B., Tehsil and District Vehari, and as such was allotted 12-1/2 Acres i.e, the disputed land on 26-9-1964. On 28-7-1964 the membership of the petitioner was removed by Ijlas-e-Aam. In Register Partal Haqooq-e-Malkiat it was incorporated on 26-9-1964 that the petitioner not only was a defaulter in payment of Rs,100 to the Society but after having shifted his residence was absent from the Chak and that he had also transferred the lot to one Muhammad soli of Noor Muhammad who was cultivating the same.
Further that the membership having been removed on 28-7-1964 the lot was liable to be cancelled from his name. Thereafter on 23-1-1965 the Society passed a resolution to the effect that lot No, 13 of Muhammad Bakhsh be allotted to Muhammad Nawaz, respondent No, 4, whereon the Colony Assistant/Collector, respondent No, 5, vide his order, dated 23-11-1965 allotted the same to respondent No,
4. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed appeal before Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, which was dismissed on 27-7-1968. The petitioner then challenged these orders through civil suit which was dismissed on 11-5-1968. Appeal filed by the petitioner was, however, withdrawn by him on 25-7-1968. The petitioner then moved Deputy Registrar for arbitration. His application was, however, dismissed on 10-11-1968. The revision filed by him against this order was also dismissed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, respondent No, 1, on 26-11-1968. The petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No, 1974 of 1968 which was withdrawn by him with permission to file fresh petition. He has accordingly filed the present petition.
3. The learned counsel has raised following points before me:--
(i) That the findings of the Co-operative Farming Society, respondent No, 3, Colony Assistant and the Additional Commissioner to the effect that the petitioner was an absentee and had transferred the land to Muhammad son of Noor Muhammad were factually incorrect inasmuch as the petitioner's father having fallen ill, the petitioner had gone to look after his father leaving the lot with Muhammad son of Noor Muhammad to cultivate the same as his servant;
(ii) that the resolution, dated 23-4-1965 for allotment of land to Muhammad Nawaz having not been passed in Ijlas-e-Aam was illegal. Furthermore, the resolution could not be passed without prior permission of the Administrator, Co-operative Farming Society, respondent No, 1;
(iii) that Colony Assistant/Collector, respondent No, 5, had no authority under the law to allot the land to respondent No, 4;
(iv) that the Additional Commissioner while rejecting the appeal did not appreciate the matter in its true perspective; and
(v) that the orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are not speaking ordeRs,
4. Having considered the arguments of the learned counsel in the light of the record available before me I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. As for his contentions, I find that the assertions raised by him in point No, (i) have been seriously refuted by the Co-operative Society, respondent No, 3, and the Additional Commissioner, respondent No,
6. In the resolution signed by the members it has been categorically stated that the petitioner had absented himself from the Chak and that the lot after having been given to Muhammad was being cultivated by him. There is nothing on record except the statement and affidavit of the petitioner to controvert these allegations. In any case the assertions of the petitioner having been denied by the respondents the matter cannot be resolved without deeper Investigation which I am afraid cannot be done by this Court while sitting in writ jurisdiction. As for point No, (ii), I find that the learned counsel has not referred to any bye-law whereby the resolution could not be passed in a manner in which it purports to have been passed. So far as point No, (iii) is concerned, the learned counsel has also failed to lay his hand on any relevant provision of law restraining Colony Assistant in his capacity as Collector from making allotment to any person. Coming to point No, (iv) I find that the learned Additional Commissioner has applied conscious mind to the facts of the case and has appreciated the matter properly. He has given sound reasons in support 'of the conclusion arrived at by him. As for the last contention, I find that the order are not detailed ones but to my mind this, infirmity in the orders B passed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, respondent No, 2, and by Registrar, Co-operative Societies, respondent No, 1, do not have any adverse effect on the orders of the removal of the membership, resolution passed by the Co-operative Farming Society, respondent No, 3, the allotment made by the Colony Assistant Collector, respondent No, 5, and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, respondent No, 6, and as such no interference with the impugned orders whereby the membership of the petitioner was removed, the allotment of the lot was cancelled and the disputed land was allotted to Muhammad Nawaz, respondent No, 4, is warranted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. I further find that this petition suffers from several infirmities, for example, the basic order, dated 28-7-1964 passed by Ijlas-e-Aam of the Co- operative Farming Society, has not been challenged in this writ petition. To my mind that being the crucial order should also have been challenged. The other flaw which I find in this petition, is that copy of the impugned order of the Colony Assistant/Collector, dated 23-11-1965 has not been placed on the record and as such it was not possible for the Court to examine the credentials of that order. I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition could also be dismissed for these defects.
5. For what has been stated above there being no merit the petition is dismissed in limine.