In Chak No.5/14-L, Tehsil Chichawatni, District Sahiwal, respondents Nos.4 and 5, Hassan Muhammad and Muhammad Rafiq are in occupation of a portion of Ihata No.109, which is close to the village Chowk. A large portion of the same, alongwith adjacent Khasra No.138, has allegedly been occupied by the aforesaid persons illegally, and they have also erected two shops, one for sale of fruit and the other for bicycle repairs. It is so stated in para No.2 of the writ petition, which has been filed by Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Ali, two residents of the village, the prayer being that the Government land and the public thoroughfare, in wrongful possession of respondents Nos.5 and 6, be got vacated and a case be ordered to be registered against them.
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the Deputy Commissioner, Shaiwal and Assistant Commissioner, Chichawatni whereas respondents Nos.3 and 4 are A.S.P. Chicha Watni and SHO P.S. Kassowal. They have, according to the petitioners, failed to discharge their statutory duties, in not preventing respondents Nos.5 and 6 from performing the illegal acts aforesaid.
2. The stand taken by the writ-petitioners, as revealed in paras Nos.l and 2 of the petition, is somewhat inconsistent. In para No.l it has been stated that respondents Nos.5 and 6 have got in their favour allotment of Ihata No.288, measuring 5 Kanals and 3 Marlas, and they have also illegally occupied Ihata No.289, with an equal area, after securing its allotment in the name of one of their relatives, Ali Muhammad. As per para 2, they are in occupation of a portion of Ihata No.109, to the extent of one Kanal six Marlas, alongwith Khasra 138, the thoroughfare. Whatever be the actual position it appears that respondents Nos. 5 and 6 have encroached upon a part of a public street. As is averred in para No.3, the Colony Field Staff had, on a move made by the village people, conducted a probe and recommended to the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector that proceedings under sections 32/34, Colonization of Government Lands Act be taken against these persons. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 had filed a civil suit and obtained a stay order, which was later vacated and their appeal was also dismissed by the learned District Judge. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 then approached the Revenue Minister, who on 19-7-1992 suspended the proceedings under section 32/34 ibid, and called upon the Deputy Commissioner to make a report. The Deputy Commissioner reported (Annexure `D') that these persons had no entitlement to remain in occupation of the disputed strip of land. The Minister for Colonies, thereupon, vacated the stay order dated 19-7-92, and asked the Deputy Commissioner to proceed in the matter, in accordance with law. These orders were conveyed to the Deputy Commissioner by the Deputy Secretary (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, on 15-10-92 (Annexure `E'). The Naib-Tehsildar, under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, went to the spot to carry out the orders, but, on apprehending breach of peace, he made a request for police assistance (Annexure `F'). Such assistance was provided to him as per Annexures G and H.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, in his comments, submitted to this Court, has endorsed the standpoint of the petitioners. Respondents Nos. 5 and 6 however maintain that a small strip of State land may have innocently been occupied by them, as the same adjoins their Ihata, but they had no intention to clamp their wrongful possession upon any tract of State land, or any portion of the public thoroughfare.
4. It thus emerges that the controversy between the parties would also ; assume a factual character; and the same can be resolved by the Colony Staff, by making an on-the-spot inspection/demarcation. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken in the proceedings of a writ petition. One of respondents Nos. 5 , and 6 had also instituted a civil suit. Strictly speaking, jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under section 36, Colonization of Government Lands Act.
However, if jurisdiction of the Civil Court is invoked, and in the circumstances of a particular case, the Civil Court proceeds, in exercise of its plenary jurisdiction, such an issue may also be examined and adjudicated upon, on the strength of I or in the light of the evidence of the parties.
5. Grievance of the petitioners is that the whole village population has been put to inconvenience and hardship, and the respondents (Nos. 5 and 6) are perpetuating their unlawful stay at the site, but no final action is being taken against them in order to undo the wrong committed by them. In the course of arguments it has also been said that these persons (respondents Nos.5 and 6) are always able to enlist the support of elected representatives and influential quarters and do not permit the things to move in the right direction, and the proceedings before the Colony/Revenue Authorities are really not being allowed to come to their logical conclusion. Unfortunately, the democratic order in our country has incessantly been infested with and marred by such an ugly monster of undue interference by public representatives in the day-to-day working of every Department of the Government, and functioning of the administrative set-up in general. However, the Authorities are enjoined to conduct themselves strictly in accordance with law, and within confines of their statutory powers, uninfluenced by any extraneous considerations, undeterred and undaunted by political figures. It is expected that respondents Nos.l to 4 shall realize their responsibility in the matter and attend to the job, in right earnest, in public interest. As already said, interference by this Court in the matter, in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, would plainly be uncalled for. ` With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.'-It will be open to the petitioners to produce a copy pf this order before the learned District Collector, for further action in the matter.