1. ' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, C.J--Order dated c23-12-1990 of the Assistant Commissioner, Badin, in the case of Muhammad Ismail (respondent No,2) v. Union Texas Incorpr. of Pakistan (petitioner) is challenged on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner had no authority jurisdiction to pass the said order. The said order is reproduced here:--- "The applicant Muhammad Ismail Mehari has contended in his application that he owns S. No, 321, Deh Shaikhano, Taluka Golarchi. He has further stated that M/s. UTP has constructed road from his lands some two years ago but he has not yet been compensated. He therefore prayed that he may be compensated of his land used by Union Texax Oil Company.
2. ' The Mukhtiarkar, Golarchi and the Company Representative were directed to carry out joint survey of the lands of applicant. The Mukhtiarkar, Golarchi under his letter No, SG/817 dated 24-11-1990 has reported that an area of 0-32 ghuntas out of S. No,321 of Deh Shaikhano, has been used under Road by the Company. This measurement has been accepted by the Survey Party too. Mr. Dildar Ali, Advocate for UTP has raised objection that the land used under Road comes in the limits of Irrigation Department.
3. ' In view of the facts, discussed above, it is crystal clear that the land of applicant has been used under the Road constructed by Messrs UTP for which he has not been compensated by any agency. It is accordingly ordered that UTP should pay the compensation to the applicant for an area which has been utilized by them. The applicant will not claim his compensation from the Irrigation Department hereafter."
4. ' It appears that there was an agreement entered into between the Government of Sindh through Irrigation Department on 12-2-1991, wherein licence was granted to the petitioner company for using the canal dirt path. It is informed by the learned counsel that the petitioner is carrying on business in Pakistan for exploration of Oil and it is further informed that, after the said agreement, the dirt path was furnaced and it has been used for transportation of exploration machinery and vehicles. Later on, respondent No,2, Ismail Maheri, claimed that a portion of his lands bearing Survey No, 321, Deh Shaikhano, Taluka Golarchi, District Badin has been taken over by the petitioner company, inasmuch as a part of the canal path comes within the holding of the respondent No, 2.
5. In the circumstances, the joint survey of the area in question took place and English translation of the statement dated 7 11-1990, after the survey had taken place, which has been filed by the petitioner, is reproduced here: "CLAIM OF ISMAIL MEHRI ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF GOVERNMENT TAPEDAR STATEMENT ' On the application of Muhammad Ismail son of Haji Muhammad Mehri the factual position is given below: ' Today 7-11-1990, on the application of Muhammad Ismail Mehri visited the site where the team of Oil Company were present. Conducted measurements with them of Survey No, 321 of Deh Shekhano. Out of Survey No, 321 acres prsently being used by Oil Company out of which access road also exists. Earlier to that this was assumed as belonging to Irrigation Department. After checking the record and measurements it revealed that the area of 0-32 acres from Survey No, 321 as per Khata is belonging to Muhammad Ismail son of Haji Muhammad Mehri. Compensation for the area from the date of usage by the Oil is recommended.
6. ' These measurements are carried out in presence of the notables. Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ Tapedar UTP Fayyaz Ahmed Ghuram Khan Zafar Ali for Oil Company. Nizamani Note.---There is no objection at the site for above statement.
7. (Sd.) Ismail Note.---Identified the same person who signed.
8. (Sd.) Tapedar ' One of signatories of the statement, Fayyaz Ahmed, is representing the petitioner-Company. This statement has not been challenged. The veracity of the statement has not been called in question.
9. It is not the case, of the petitioner-Company that Fayyaz Ahmed was forced to sign this statement.
10. From this statement, it follows that earlier it had been assumed that 32 Ghuntas of land out of Survey No, 321, which belongs to respondent No, 2, was taken to be the land belonging to the Irrigation Department, but the joint survey, of which the representative of the petitioner-Company was a party and also signatory to the statement pursuant to the survey, shows that this area of 32 Ghuntas belong to respondent No, 2 and in the circumstances the statement goes on the state as follows:-- "Compensation for that area from the date of usage by the Oil Company is recommended."
11. ' There is also a note at the end of the statement which has been reproduced hereinabove to the effect that there was no objection at the site in respect of the statement and, therefore, this would include all parties including the petitioner represented by Fayyaz Ahmed.
12. ' In the circumstances, the submission of the learned counsel that the Assistant Commissioner when he passed the order dated 23-12-1990 had no jurisdiction loses all relevance, when the petitioner accepts that 32 Ghuntas of land belongs to respondent No, 2, it cannot claim in these proceedings on any legal or technical grounds that the said area does not belong to respondent No,2.
13. ' In the circumstances, we find no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed in limine.
2. This application for interim relief has become infructuous.