This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question orders, dated 27-11-1974 and 14-12-1974, whereby the land in dispute was allotted to respondent No. 1.
2. The facts necessary for the purposes of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was allotted 200 Kanals of agricultural land under Martial Law Regulation 9 by the Border Area Committee No. 2 Narowal, Ferozewala Sector, vide order, dated 6th of March, 1962, which allotment was confirmed on 28-6-1962 against Khata No. 99 of RI-II. The land allotted to the petitioner comprised Khasra Nos. 352 to 476 before consolidation. The petitioner paid the total price of the allotment made to 11m, whereupon mutation in his name was confirmed on 21-1-1967.
3. The consolidation of this village took place in 1969-70 and the petitioner under the consolidation scheme was allocated 195 Kanals of land on Khata No. 184 which comprised Kills. Nos. 4/2 to 25 of Square No. 13 and Killa Nos. 3/4 to 5 of Square No. 21. This allocation after the consolidation was reflected in the Register Haqdaran gamin of Mauza Kalakhatai, Tehsil Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura for the year 1969-70.
4. Subsequently without cancellation of the petitioner's allotment and without notice to him major portion of his confirmed allotment was mutated in the name of respondent No. 1 by the Assistant Commissioner II on 14-12-1974. The petitioner, it has been asserted, has remained in possession thereof all along. He came to know of this mutation some time in 1976, whereafter he tried to obtain the copies of the order under which the land was allotted to respondent No. 1 and of the RL-11 but no copy was provided to him and thus he was obliged to institute the present writ petition.
5. Report and parawise comments were called for from respondent No. 2 and on perusal thereof this petition was admitted for regular hearing.
It is mentioned in para. 4 thereof that there is no allotment of Killa Nos. 13/4/2, 13/5/2 to 13/25 in favour of respondent No. 1 on or before 27-11-1974. The entries of Mutation No. 182 in dispute, it has further been averred, show that an area measuring 173 KAnals of the aforementioned Killas Nos.
13/4/2, 5 to 25 had been mutated in favour of respondent No. 1 but it is not known how it happened.
6. No one has appeared for the respondents who have been proceeded against ex parte.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is apparent from the report of respondent No. 2 that the impugned orders of mutation in dispute had been passed without any lawful authority and are the result of fraud and forgery practised on the rights of the petitioner.
'8. The learned counsel further contended that it is fur this reason that respondent No. 1 has also not dared to appear to controvert any of the assertions made in the petition.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner was, however, confronted with the position as to why the petitioner had not availed of the other adequate remedies available to him against the impugned orders. He could not give any satisfactory reason for not having availed of those remedies except that the petitioner whose genuine allotment was being tampered with without any lawful authority and who was not being provided with any orders on the basis of which the impugned mutation was made could only seek the remedy in the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. He also submitted that this petition has been pending for over 9 years and if no relief is granted to him he will suffer an irreparable loss.
10. An application has been made by the petitioner to implead the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division as a party to this petition so that a direction could be issued to him for looking into the grievance of the petitioner in his revisional jurisdiction.
11. Having considered the controversy, I find that the case of the petitioner as presented and as commented upon by respondent No. 2 does show that the impugned mutation which appears to have been confirmed on 14-12-1974 has been made without any lawful authority and is not based on any order of allotment. This, however, calls for a factual inquiry and the more appropriate and adequate remedies were available to the petitioner which he presumably under some misapprehension and fear did not avail. His writ petition having been admitted in this Court and remained pending for a long time may have deprived him of opportunity of availing the remedy of appeal/ revision, etc. Within time but nevertheless the Commissioner as a revisional authority under section 164 of the Land Revenue Act can at his own motion call for the record of any case disposed of by any Revenue Officer under his control and pass such orders as he thinks fit. This appears to be a fit case where such a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised by the said revisional authority.
12. I would, therefore, implead the Commissioner/ Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore as a party to this petition and direct him to exercise his revisional jurisdiction in the matter and decide the case in accordance with law.
This petition is disposed of in terms of the above order.
Since the respondents have not appeared to contest this petition, there will be no order as to costs.