' The petitioners through this Constitutional petition have prayed that order dated 27-3-1976 passed by the respondent No, 1 may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The relevant facts are that petitioner No, 1 was allotted land measuring 19 Kanals 3 Marlas in Kasur City under the Border Area Scheme. The allotment of the petitioner No, 1 was cancelled by the respondent No, 1 to the extent of 1 Kanal. Hence present petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the petition argued that the Provincial Government proceeded to transfer the State land situated within five miles from Indo-Pakistan Border to the Border Area Committee. The petitioner No, 1 was allotted 19 Kanals 3 Marlas on 24-6- 1970. However, the Provincial Government vide notification dated 28-9-1970 excluded the land within the municipal limits from the purview of the Border Area Committee and also notified that the allotment of land situated in the Municipal limits shall be cancelled. This was followed by another notification dated 20-1-1973 to the same effect. Thereafter the land was cancelled from the name of the petitioner No, 1, therefore, he was obliged to file W.P. No, 10R/73 which was accepted by this Court vide order dated 19-6-1974. Side by side the tenants-at-will in possession of the land allotted to the petitioner No, 1 also filed W.P. No, 77-R/72. The same was heard alongwith the writ petition of the petitioner No, 1 which accepted vide order dated 19-6-1974 and case was sent to the Board of Revenue for decision in accordance with law. As far W.P. Of tenants is concerned, however, it was observed that in case the land is resumed from ex-servicemen allottees then the right of the tenants should also be considered. The respondent No, 1 after hearing the parties cancelled the allotment of the petitioner No, 1 to the extent of 1 Kanal on the ground that this land vests in Improvement Trust, Kasur in accordance with notification dated 12-1-1946. Hence present petition, which was admitted to hearing and notices were issued to the respondents, who have appeared through Rana Muhammad Arshad Khan, learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab and contested the petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the petition argued that subsequent notification dated 28-9-1970 withdrawing the lands situated within the Municipal limits from the Border. Area Committee cannot be given retrospective effect, therefore, the allotment made in favour of petitioner No, 1 on 24-6-1970 would remain undisturbed. It is argued, that the respondent No, 1 could not set aside the allotment and in any case he did not follow the proper procedure.
4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate-General argued that the Provincial Government having transferred the land to the Improvement Trust vide notification dated 12-1-1946 could not have again transferred the same land to Border Area Committee vide notification dated 6-11-1969, therefore, the land never vested in the Border Area Committee and was not available for allotment by it to petitioner No,
1. It is argued that actually the Border Area Scheme meant for the settlement of the ex-servicemen in the border belt, therefore, the urban area could not form part of the land transferred to the Border Area Committee. The arguments are summed up with the submission that acceptance of this writ petition would amount to perpetuate the illegality. This is against the purpose of law. The learned Additional Advocate-General in this behalf, has referred to the cases of Wall Muhammad and others v. Sakhi Muhammad and others (PLD 1974 SC 106), Nawab Sayed Raunaq Ali and others v. C.S.C. And others (PLD 1973 SC 236), Rehmatullah and others v. Mst. Hameeda Begum and others (1986 SCM R 1561) and Nagina Cotton Mills Limited v. Pakistan through The Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others (1990 CLC 1337).
5. I have given my anxious considerations to the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, gone through the record and precedent cases. The admitted position is that State land within five miles of the border belt was transferred to the Border Area Committee for the first time vide notification dated 6-11-1969. The question is whether the land in dispute was available on this date.
It is clear from the order of the respondent No, 1 that the land had already been transferred by the Provincial Government to the respondent No,2 vide notification dated 124-1946, therefore, the Provincial Government has no right or authority to transfer the same to the Border Area Committee.
In other words, the land did not belong to Provincial Government on 6-11-1969, therefore, it has no right or authority to transfer the same to Border Area Committee. The same, legally speaking, would be deemed to never have vested in the Border Area Committee and as natural consequence the Committee had no right to make the allotment to petitioner No, 1.
6. The petitioners although have heavily relied on notifications dated 6-11-1969, 28-9-1970 and 20- 1-1973 but 'none of these notifications have been produced. This is one of the most poorly documented petition. Be that as it may, since the land no longer vested in the Provincial Government, therefore, it had no jurisdiction to deal with the same. The natural corollary is that the allotment in favour of the petitioner No, 1 was void ab initio.
7. The learned Additional Advocate-General has rightly argued that the acceptance of this writ petition would amount to perpetuating illegality and protecting ill-gotten benefits. It is not the purpose of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Wali Muhammad and others and C Nagina Cotton Mills Limited, referred to by the learned Additional Advocate-General.
8. The upshot of this discussion is that this petition is without any merit, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.