This Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner Noor Mahi through his General Attorney Sardar Khan is directed against the order of the Border Area Committee dated 18-12-1989 whereby allotment of land made. to the petitioner in village Jaguwala, Tehsil and District Kasur was cancelled being bogus and fictitious.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the land measuring 24,E Kanals situate in village Jaguwala, Tehsil Kasur was allotted in the name of Noor Mahi petitioner at Khata No. 40 of Register RL-B on 20-4-1960. It was brought to the notice of the Border Area Committee that the said allotment was bogus, fictitious and based on fraud. Precise allegation made was that the allotment in dispute was made in the name of the petitioner on the false premises that he had earlier been allotted some land in village Nagar Aimanpura, Tehsil Kasur which was cancelled as it was sandy and and it was in lieu thereof that the land in village Jaguwala was allotted to him. It was alleged that in fact, no allotment was made to the petitioner in village Nagar Aimanpura nor was any approval for allotment given. by G.H.Q. It was further alleged that the land in dispute stood allotted to one Saadat Ali up to 1969 whose allotment was cancelled without any appropriate order and fake allotment made in the name of the petitioner who was not even residing in Pakistan.
3. In view of the allegations aforementioned, an enquiry was instituted by the Border Area Committee and a notice issued to the petitioner whose General Attorney Mirza.Kifayat Rasool appeared before the Committee and took the stand that the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioner on 19-4-1969 in lieu of the land earlier allotted to him in village Nagar Aimanpura in the year 1964 which was cancelled owing to its double allotment. The impugned order shows that the Members of the Committee asked the petitioner's General Attorney whether the petitioner was personally present at the time of the allotment of the land in dispute but he gave no reply. The General Attorney was also directed many a time to produce the petitioner which he failed to do and informed the Committee that the petitioner was residing in England for the last 28/30 years but he had no knowledge whether he visited Pakistan off and on. The Committee then issued show-cause notice to the petitioner through Pakistan Embassy in U.K. which was served on him and his son Ashiq Hussain appeared before the Committee though he had no power-of attorney. It is in the impugned order that on the Committee's query, Ashiq Hussain could not tell since when his father was residing in England nor did he has any knowledge as to his occasional visits to Pakistan.
He also did not producethe Discharge Certificate of his father nor any 1recommendation/approval of G.H.Q. nor any allotment order.
4. According to the impugned order, the Border Area Committee examined its Ahlmad Usman Ghani and Abdul Ghafoor Patwari, Halqa Nagar 1460 Aimanpura. Usman Ghani stated that the land measuring 241 Kanals 18 Marlas was shown to have been allotted to the petitioner at Khata No.14/16 of Nregister RL-B of village Nagar Aimanpura on 26-5-1964 wherein reference wasmade to the allotment order No. 7778/451/WR dated 5-4-1964 but no such allotment order was available on record- He further stated that the said rata was shown to have been cancelled on account of double allotment vide order dated 20-4-1969 but the order bore the signature of only one Member (Civil) and a seal of the Army Member. It was further stated by Usman Gham that in village eaguwala, 202 Kauals 12 Marlas of land was allotted to Havildar Saadat Ali at Khata No. 37 of Register RL-B on 31-3-1962 but according to a note recorded thereon, the Khata was canceued on 19-4-1969 owing to the non fulfilment of conditions. The note, it was stated, was not signed by any competent authority. Similarly, Khata No. 40 on which the land-in dispute 46 Kanals was allotted to the petitioner Noor mahi on 20-4-1969 measuring 2 was also not signed by any competent authority nor did it bear any photo or signatures of the allottee. Munshi Abdul Ghafoor Patwari stated that the allotment said to have been made to the petitioner in village Nagar AimanPurn was not implemented in the revenue record and it also found no mention in Registers Haqdaran Zamin for the years 1963-64 and 1967'68. Instead, the areallegedly allotted to the petitioner was shown as belonging to the Central Government and was entered as'
5. The Border Area Committee observed 'that Khata No. 14/16 in Village Nagar Almanpura was shown to have been signed by Muhammad Adam Patwari on 26-5-1964 but the said official who was presently working a Girdawar, Mustafaabad Circle disowned his signatures. It was also noted by the Committee that the signatures of Munshi Muhammad Aslam and that of the petitioner on the said Khata were in the same hand and that the entries of allotment and cancellation of the Khata in question were also in the same handwriting. The Committee also took note of the fact that although according to the record, the land in village Nag Aimanpura was shown as belonging to the Central Government, the reason for cancellation of the Khata stated in the order dated 20-4- 1969 was its double allotment. With respect to the allotment of land in. dispute at Khata No. 40, the finding of the Border Area Committee was that it was not signed by any competent authority. The Committee took particular note of the fact that neither the file relating to the allotment of land in dispute in lieu of the land cancelled from the name of the petitioner in village Nagar Aimanpura nor the file of cancellation of allotment of Havildar Saadat Ali was available on record. It was further noted in the impugned order that the entries of allotment in the name of the petitioner and the note regarding the cancellation of Khata No. 37 were in the same handwriting. It was also observed by the Committee that the of allotment made to the ex-servicemen in village Jaguwala was 200 scale Kanals but strangely enough, the petitioner was allotted 246 Kanals. Yet another discrepancy noted by the Committee was that in the Robkar produced by the petitioner's Mukhtar-i-Aam, the reason for cancellation of Khata of Saadat Ali was statedo be his having obtained another allotment in village Jaman, Tehsil Lahore Cantt. but in the note recorded on Register RL-B, the area was shown to have been cancelled on account of non-fulfilment of conditions. The Border Area Committee noted with surprise that the allotment made to Saadat Ali of 7-4-1962 at Khata No. 36 of Register RL-B of village Jaman and the note recorded on the said Khata on 23-12-1972 stating that the allotment was cancelled on account of non-fulfilment of conditions were in the same hand.
6. In view of the circumstances aforementioned, the Border Area Committee finally held that the allotment of the land in dispute in the name of the petitioner was bogus and fictitious and the same was accordingly cancelled.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not afforded proper and reasonable opportunity of meeting the allegations leveled against him. I find no force' in this contention. Petitioner's General Attorney Mirza Kifayat Rasool and the petitioner's son Ashiq Hussain appeared before the Border Area Committee which fact has not been controverted by the learned counsel. None of them could produce either the Discharge Certificate of the petitioner to show that he was an ex-serviceman or any recommendation/approval of the G.H.Q. regarding the allotments of land made to the petitioner in village Nagar Aimanpura and/or village Jaguwala. Petitioner has not produced any such document even in this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a grievance that the petitioner submitted an application before the Border Area Committee for copies of certain orders/documents which were not supplied to him. Petitioner has not placed copy of any such application on the present record. It is, however, stated in para. 7 of the writ petition that "the petitioner has applied for the supply of certified copies, vide Diary No. 7 dated 27-12-1989. The petitioner has also requested to supply other documents, but nothing is being supplied to the petitioner, up til now, therefore, the instant petition is being filed without appending therewith copy of the order dated 18-12-1989 and some other documents. The petitioner, however, undertakes to place on record the same on its availability. Since the said copies are not being made available to- the petitioner, the petitioner reserves the right to amend the petition accordingly". This averment does not disclose the nature of the documents copies whereof were applied for by the petitioner.
Be that as it may, during the pendency of this writ petition, petitioner never sought the help of this Court for obtaining the requisite copies if the same were not supplied to him by the Border Area Committee. He also took no steps for summoning the record from the G.H.Q. ,4 The fact thus remains that the petitioner has failed to bring any material on the record to controvert the afore- noted adverse findings/observations recorded by the Border Area Committee in the impugned order. He has not even cared to put in a rejoinder to the written statement submitted by the Border Area Committee. In the circumstances, I see no justification to interfere with the findings of fact recorded in the impugned order of the Border Area Committee regarding the allotment made to the petitioner in village Nagar Aimanpura (Khata No. 14/16) and cancellation thereof; the allotment of the land in dispute to the petitioner in village Jaguwala (Khata No. 40) as also cancellation of allotment of Havldar Saadat Ali at Khata No. 37 of the said village. These .findings, it may pertinently be observed, are based on sound reasoning and after proper examination and due consideration of the entries in the relevant record as also the statements made by the officials concerned.
Needless to observe that the inferences drawn by the Border Area Committee from the material placed before and examined by it are such as could have been drawn by a reasonable person.
Law is fairly well-settled that this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution would not substitute .its own opinion/finding for that of the Tribunal below as the writ the, jurisdiction is not akin to appellate jurisdiction nor does it amount to re--hearing of the case.
Upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned. order of the Border Area Committee does not call for any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ petition having no merit is accordingly dismissed