1. MUHAMMAD NASEEM CHAUDHRI, J.---Mst. Surrya Kausar respondent No:6 submitted an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha wherein she expressed that she was the owner in possession of the property situated in fileds Nos.3/1, 3/3, 4/1, 4/2, 5/1, 5/2, 6, 15, 16 and 25 in square No,27 (total area 55 Kanals and 5 Marlas) situated in Chak No,30 Shumali, Tehsil and District Sargodha and that Muhammad Iqbal son of Allah Rakha Caste Kahloon and Dullah son of Muhammad caste Luk both residents of Chak No,30 Shumali were keeping the same under their unauthorised occupation without lawful justification who did not pay the amount of rent to her. She prayed that she may be delivered the possession of her property through the agency of the Police.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha passed the following order:- SHO PS Saddar.
3. "Please take immediate legal action for the restoration of possession and report within two days." (Sd.) (Hamid Ali Khan) Deputy Commissioner; Sargodha, District. 11-12-1997.
4. ' Saif-ur-Rehman S.H.O. Police Station, Saddar Sargodha alongwith the Police party comprising Rab Nawaz S.I., Ali Muhammad ASI, Murtaza ASI (respondents Nos.2 to 5) as well as Riaz Ahmad, Ijaz Ahmad, Sajid Husain, Abid Husain, Irshad Ahmad, Mehmood alias Mooda and Muhammad Asghar (respondents Nos.7 to 12) reached at the aforesaid property on 27-12-1997 at 6 p.m. who deprived the occupant of the possession and are said to have taken away some articles. Claiming to be owner-in-possession of the property Muhammad Asmat alias Muhammad Asmatullah at present based in United Kingdom, filed this writ petition through his General Attorney, Muhammad Iqbal son of Allah Rakha, caste Kahloo resident of Chak No,30 Shumali, District Sargodha wherein he pleaded that there was litigation between him and Mst. Surrya Kausar pending in the Civil Court and the Revenue Court about the ownership and possession of the disputed property and that she was claiming to be the owner of the property without lawful and factual justification, that Muhammad Iqbal was his tenant on the disputed property and that the alleged sale evidenced through Mutation No,488 attested on 29-9-1994 attributed to him in favour of Mst. Surrya Kausar respondent No,6 was fraudulent, without consideration, void, and inoperative. He maintained that the possession of the land was taken by the Police and the remaining respondents on the illegal order dated 11-12-1997 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha. He maintained that he as well as his tenant Muhammad Iqbal could not be ejected in that illegal manner adopted by the respondents. He prayed for the restoration of the possession to him, get restrained the respondents from cutting the trees and for the registration of a criminal case against respondents Nos.2 to 13.
5. The comments were called from Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha and the Superintendent of Police, Sargodha. The Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha in the initial comments submitted that he had passed the order to the Police for the restoration of the possession and report within two days and that it was the liability and the duty of the Police to have investigated the case and proceeded in accordance with law. However, afterwards, he submitted fresh comments wherein he specifically expressed that he was not competent to pass the order and himself prayed that the possession of the writ petitioner may be restored. The Superintendent of Police expressed in the comments that the Police acted at the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha, restored the possession to Mst. Surrya Kausar and thus was not criminally liable.
6. 2.This petition was admitted for regular hearing on 24-2-1998.
7. 3.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record before me. The main contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that there was no decree of any Court of competent jurisdiction against Muhammad Asmat alias Muhammad Asmatullah writ petitioner or his General Attorney/tenant Muhammad Iqbal son of Allah Rakha for dispossession, that even there was no criminal case against the petitioner or his tenant who were not convicted so as to pass the order under section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the restitution of the possession and that a method/procedure was adopted by the Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha to dispossess the petitioner. They maintained that the order dated 11-12-1997 passed by the Deputy Commissioner was devoid of rule of law whereby he transgressed his authority and that his stand that the Police had to take the legal course in the matter was simply without any legal force. It was added that the petitioner was dispossessed from the land at the direction of the Deputy 7ommissioner, Sargodha who had no authority to pass the summary order and thus, the constitutional right of the petitioner provided in Article 25(1) of the Constitution, 1973 has been violated whereby.
8. "All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law."
9. They maintained that the fundamental and legal right of the petitioner has been infringed which is his personal and individual right and has been recognised by law and thus the writ petition is maintainable and the petitioner is entitled to this constitutional right of the restitution of the possession of the property obtained from him on the illegal and unjustified order dated 11-12-1997 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Sargodha and that it is also a fit case for the registration of a criminal case against respondents Nos.2 to 13. On the contrary the arguments of the Learned counsel for Mst. Surrya Kausar respondent No,6 are that she was dispossessed from the suit property otherwise than due process of law and that the Deputy Commissioner passed the order on 11-12-1997 on the basis of which petitioner was dispossessed, that Muhammad Iqbal was not competent to file the Writ petition, that the efficacious remedy available to the petitioner is that of filing a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act as well as under section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 with respect to the alleged wrongful dispossession of the petitioner and that this writ petition is not maintainable.
4. I am of the view that the reasoning adopted by the learned counsel for the petitioner has to prevail Muhammad Iqbal was admittedly in possession of the suit property. He is a tenant as well as the General Attorney of Muhammad Asmat alias Muhammad Asmatullah petitioner and on the basis of impugned order dated 11-12-1997 he has been dispossessed from the disputed property. In the application submitted by Mst. Surrya Kausar it is narrated that Muhammad Iqbal son of Allah Rakha and Dullah son of Muhammad caste Luk were in possession of the disputed property. This Muhammad Iqbal is in fact the tenant and the General Attorney of the writ petitioner. It is pertinent to mention that the copy of the General power of attorney got attested by the writ petitioner in United Kingdom in favour of Muhammad Iqbal forms part of this writ petition. The admitted position is that the alleged mutation of sale bearing No,488 dated 29-9-1994 has been assailed by the writ petitioner on the grounds that the same is fraudulent, without consideration, false and fictitious.
10. The suit is still pending. The suit instituted by Mst. Surrya Kausar before the Revenue Officer for the dispossession of his tenant Muhammad Iqbal is also pending. There is no decree of any Civil Court or Revenue Court in favour of Mst. Surrya Kausar for the dispossession of the writ petitioner or his general attorney-tenant named as Muhammad Iqbal. There is no allegation against the writ petitioner or Muhammad Iqbal that they dispossessed her, that a criminal case was registered against them, that they were convicted and as contemplated under section 522 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the possession of the disputed immovable property could be restored to her. In the comments, in spite of the direction given twice in the matter, the Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha could not express as to whether he had passed the order under the general law or the revenue law or the criminal law. He seems to have been impressed by the sympathetic considerations for the reason that Mst. Surrya Kausar is a female. Mr. Hamid Ali Khan, Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha, appeared before this Court yesterday and frankly conceded that he had passed the illegal order on 11-12-1997 by directing the Police to dispossess the occupant Muhammad Iqbal from the suit property. In his comments, he has frankly conceded that the writ petition may be accepted and the order for the restitution of the possession may be passed. It is a clear cut case of discrimination and transgression of authority. The litigation is pending between the parties and the petitioner has not been treated equally as provided under Article 25(1) of the Constitution 1973 whereby, "all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law." Since the petitioner has been dispossessed through the agency of the Police at the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha, it can safely be expressed and held that the petitioner could not resort to the filing of civil suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act or under section 50 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 as his personal and individual right stands infringed and he has rightly resorted to the filing of this writ petition. I would express that provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 confer very wide powers on this High Court for the enforcement of fundamental and legal rights. It would be proper to express that Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 provides remedy for the infringment of the fundamental and legal rights of a person. However, the condition precedent to the granting of any relief under the said Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 depends on existence of fundamental and legal right of a person and of infringment of such right. Further the right which is the foundation of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is a personal and individual right which may be statutory right recognized by law. A person can be said to be aggrieved when he was denied a legal right by someone who had legal duty to perform relating to that right. The constitutional right and the legal right of the petitioner stands infringed through the passing of the impugned order dated 11-12-1997. He has been dispossessed otherwise than due process of law. Under Article 4 of the Constitution, 1973. "to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being in Pakistan."
11. As held above the law has been flagrantly violated qua the writ petitioner. As such in the special circumstances of this matter, when the Deputy Commissioner Sargodha acted illegally and without authority who had himself expressed his regrets while appearing before this Court yesterday, it can safely be held that the writ petitioner is entitled to the restitution of the possession and it is the high time to restrain the state power to be projected in this manner ignoring the rule of law and violating the legal and constitutional provisions.
12. 5.However, with respect to the proposed relief of registration of a criminal case I have to express that the efficacious remedy of filing a private complaint in terms of section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is available to the petitioner and if required and desired by him, he may proceed in the matter in accordance with law. To this extent this writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
13. 6.At this stage I am tempted to express that an abnormal/novel/illegal method was adopted/invented by the Deputy Commissioner Sargodha to dispossess the petitioner against whom no Court of competent jurisdiction had passed the order/decree for his dispossession.
14. Suffice it to express that if the summary type of impugned order dated 11-12-1997 is given the weight then there would be no necessity of establishing the Civil, Revenue and Criminal Courts. No doubt the Deputy Commissioner of a District is the Representative of the State. However, he cannot be allowed to project the State Power in this autocratic and illegal manner. In case the summary order dated 11-12-1997 is approved there would be administrative chaos in the society leading towards judicial anarchy. In short such a working must be avoided by the executive authorities who are also bound to keep before them the importance and weight of the shape of scale of justice.
15. 7.For what has been said above, I accept this writ petition to the extent of restitution of the possession of the suit property from Mst. Surrya Kausar to Muhammad Asmat alias Muhammad Asmatullah, petitioner through his general attorney/tenant Muhammad Iqbal. The Deputy Commissioner Sargodha is directed to execute this order and restore the possession, under his supervision, of the suit property from Mst. Surrya Kausar respondent No,6 to the writ petitioner as expressed above within a period of 30 days from today by adopting all means including the agency of the Police under intimation to the Registrar of this Court. Mst. Surrya Kausar shall bear the costs of the writ petition.