This Constitutional petition is a classic depiction of human nature wherefrom stress, strife, conflicts persecution and kleptomanic orientations flow. Celebrated Jurist, Jeremy Taylor, in his Works, XIII, 306 Hebersed, said "A Herd of Wolves is quieter and more at one than so many men, unless they all had one reason in them or have one power over them". Similarly another Jurist said "Man, when he reaches the perfection of virtue is the best of all animals; A but if he goes his way without law and justice he becomes the worst of all brutes" (See Lloyd 's' Introduction to Jurisprudence, page 136 Sixth Edition).
2. In order to appreciate rival contentions of the parties, I find it necessary to first set out the claim of the petitioner and then reply of respondents Nos.1 to 3 in detail. The claim of the former, briefly gathered from the petition is: that the petitioners were owners of agricultural land measuring 942 Kanals and 7 Marlas in Mauza Hansra situated within the limits of Municipal Committee Bahawalpur; that their holding was in Khewat No,2/2, Khatuni Nos.2 to 5 and another piece of land measuring 59 Kanals in Khewat No,19/19 Khatuni No,29 (according to Jamabandi 1984-85); that by means of Notification No, 29, dated 17-5-1955, the Commissioner Bahawalpur Division acquired 1317 Kanals of land for the construction of Bahawalpur Cantonment; that Mutation No,978 was sanctioned in favour of Cantonment on 20-6-1990 wherein land measuring 920 Kanals and 14 Marlas was illegally mutated. Feeling injured, the petitioners moved an application through their attorney/one Munawar Ali/on 19-11-1992 stating therein that the petitioners had not received compensation for land measuring 577 Kanals and 10 Marlas out of the land which had been mutated in favour of Cantonment/Armed Forces. It was prayed that the compensation with respect to the land be worked out and he paid to the petitioners. This application was addressed to the Military Estate Officer, Multan Cantt.
3. Pursuant to the above application, the said Military Estate Officer found that the compensation had been paid to the owners for the land acquired under Notification No,29 to the extent of 164 Kanals and 5 Marlas only that the possession of the land of the petitioners had been taken over by the Armed Forces on 11-6-1955; that the petitioners were entitled to compensation as prayed in the application. With these findings, the Military Estate Officer, Multan Circle Multan Cantt. Sent the application to the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur who agreed with the said findings and found that the petitioners had not been paid compensation as pointed out in the application. On this conclusion he moved the Commissioner Bahawalpur Division Bahawalpur with the request to denotify the land of the petitioners to that extent. This happened vide memorandum, dated 5-3- 1994, addressed to the Military Estate Officer; Multan Circle Multan Cantt. (See Annexure AY). The petitioners, therefore, moved yet another application to the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur on 12-6-1994. The latter sent a note to the Military Estate Officer, Multan Cann. On 19-6-1994. Yet another application was given to Military Authorities. As the grievance of the petitioners had not been redressed, this Constitution petition, has been lodged for grant of following reliefs:--- "Under the -circumstances it is respectfully prayed that the respondents may kindly he directed to release and make immediate payment of cost of land measuring 693 Kanals and 10 Marlas situated in Mauza Hamra, Bahawalpur which is now under the illegal possession of the respondent No,2, to the petitioners. It is further prayed that a stay order may kindly be issued restraining the respondent. No,4 not to transfer the 'fund' amounting to rupees 120 Million to D.C. Khanewal till the final disposal of the instant writ petition. An application to this effect is being presented separately with this petition. Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be awarded to the petitioners in the interest of justice."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of this petition raised two pints: ' Firstly; that the petitioners were owners in possession of 942 Kan& and 7 Marlas in Khewat No,2/2 and 95 Kanals in Khewat No,19/19 falling in Mauza Hamra; that by virtue of Notification No,29 land measuring 1317 Kanals was acquired; that in year 1990, land measuring 693 Kanals was owned by the petitioners and was not acquired vide afore-referred notification; that same was illegally mutated in favour of second and third respondents vide Mutation No,978, dated 20-6-1990; that no compensation for the said land had been paid to the petitioners. On the strength of the above circumstances, it was strongly canvassed that the petitioners were entitled to compensation of aforesaid land in possession of Cantonment authorities Bahawalpur. Reliance was placed for this claim on the memorandum of Military Estate Officer, Multan Circle Multan Cantt. (Annexure 'C') and note by the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur (Annexure 'D').
' Secondly: Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan were relied upon to contend that respondents Nos.2 and 3 took possession of the property of the petitioners without paying its compensation to petitioners and so respondents Nos.2 and 3 were bound under the law to work out the compensation, pay the same to the petitioners. Reliance, in this context, was placed on Baghubir Singh v. Court of Wards Ajmer (AIR 1953 SC 373), Wazir Chand v. State of H.P. (AIR 1954 SC 415) K.K. Huchuni v. State of Madras (AIR 1959 SC 725), Bishan Das v. State of Punjab (AIR 1961 SC 1570), Gunwant Kaur v. Bhatinda Municipality (AIR 1970 SC 802), Maganbhai v. Union of India (AIR 1969 SC 783) and L.G. Chaudhari v. Secretary L.S.G. Department Government of Bihar (AIR 1980 SC 383).
5. Mr. A. H. Gillani, the learned Standing Counsel for Federal Government, appeared on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 while Ch. Abdus Sattar Revenue Assistant represented respondent No, 1 .
The latter produced relevant record of right from 1952 to 1995. In addition to his submission, Mr. A.H.
Gillani, learned standing counsel for Federal Government submitted written argument. He, inter alia, urged as under:
(i) That the petitioners had already filed a Civil Suit No,263 of 1986 against the Province of Punjab and Military Brigadier Commander Bahawalpur for seeking declaration to the effect that the petitioners were in possession of 925 Kanals and 1 Marla situated in Mauza Hamra, Tehsil Hasilpur; that suit-land had been mutated in favour of the Military Brig. Commander, Bahawalpur through Mutations Nos. 697 and 698 attested on 9-3-1986. Along with the plaint, an application for temporary injunction was given which was dismissed by the first Court; that feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Court of learned District Judge; that during the hearing of that appeal, the suit was withdrawn from the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge and the learned Appellate Court, after having examined the plaint, the written statement and the relevant record of the case, concluded that the suit land had been acquired by the Government of Pakistan for the Armed Forces; that the Acquiring Institution was in its possession and so the suit filed by the petitioners was not only hit by the proviso to section 42 of the Specific Relief Act but was also barred by time. Thus, the learned Appellate Court rejected the plaint vide its order, dated 19-6-1987.
(ii) that the petitioners brought another suit for possession of the property in dispute on 4-2-1987 against the Central Government through Secretary Defence Islamabad and others. This suit was contested and the learned Civil Judge, vide decision, dated 5-12-1988, dismissed the suit by applying the principle embodied under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. On the strength of above two objections, it was contended that the instant writ petition suffered from principle of res judicata and doctrine of estoppel.
(iii) That the petitioners had built their case upon the note of Military Estate Officer, Multan Circle Multan and District Collector, Bahawalpur; that the aforesaid notes of Military Estate Officer and the District Collector were based upon wholly unfounded facts and were totally false; that the action had been commenced against the Military Estate Officer. Accordingly, it was contended that petitioners had come to this Court on the basis of spurious and motivated reports and so this petition merited to be dismissed.
(iv) That this petition had been filed with soiled hands; that Mirza Munawar Ahmad son of Muhammad Tufail, who was a retired Revenue Officer, has filed this petition on behalf of 35 persons; that 'out of these petitioners-Malik Ghaus Bakhsh/petitioner No,26, Anwar Mai/petitioner No,28, Murad Khatoon/petitioner No,30 and Kundan Mai/petitioner No,32 had died ten years ago as per report of General Assistant Mr. Abdul Sattar; that Mirza Munawar Ahmad has forged their thumb-impression on the deed of attorney and so had instituted this petition with tortuous designs.
(v) Lastly that the disputed land was acquired by Pakistan Army through Mutations Nos.212, 252, 254 and 978; that its compensation had been paid; that amount of Rs,11.50 Crores was sent by the Government of Pakistan for the purpose of further acquisition of land for Cantonment of Bahawalpur and this petition has been filed to grab the aforesaid funds.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Attended to their conflicting contentions and gone through the record produced by Mian Abdul Sattar, Revenue Assistant. The questions, calling for consideration, are whether the petitioners are owners of any substantial vested rights enforceable through Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court; Whether petitioners have come to this Court with soiled hands and so this petition merits to be dismissed on this ground; whether the Cantonment Authorities are in possession of disputed land without paying its compensation to petitioners. The aforesaid questions essentially pertain to realm of facts. In order to ascertain these claims of petitioners I have perused the record of rights from 1952 to 1996 with the capable assistance of learned counsel for the parties and Mian Abdul Sattar, Revenue Assistant. Admittedly, the land owned by the petitioners was/is situated in Mauza Hansra. The record of rights pertaining to year 1952-53 shows that it comprised of land measuring 6187 Kanals and 19 Marlas; that it was situated within limits of Municipal Committee, Bahawalpur, now Municipal Corporation; that Muslims and non-Muslims were owners of 3682 Kanals and 14 Marlas; Victoria Hospital was in possession of 19 Kanals and 2 Marlas; Defence Department was in possession of 1302 Kanals 16 Marlas; Shamlat Deh covered an area of 102 Kanals and 6 Marlas while the Provincial Government was in possession of 166 Kanals 17 Marlas; that Committee was owner in possession of 860 Kanals and 5 Marlas and Saddar Committee was in possession of 28 Kanals and 13 Marlas.
Irrigation Department also owned 50 Kanals and 6 Marlas while 49 Kanals and 11 Marlas were on roads. This was the state of affair in year 1952-53. The aforesaid Jamabandi, furthermore, shows that this Mauza was unpartitioned and comprised of more than 22 joint Khata. The perusal of the record of rights depicts that on 31-3-1951, Mutation No,212 was attested in favour of Armed Forces wherein 1302 Kanals 16 Marlas was mutated in their favour through. Governor-General of Pakistan.
Thereafter, Notification No,29 was issued on 17-5-1955 by Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division/acquiring 1684 Kanals and 10 Marlas in this revenue estate. This land was acquired for the purpose of construction of Cantonment. Unfortunately, this Notification was not embodied in Revenue Record. Thereafter, the Cantonment/Defence Department purchased 290 Kanals and 4 Marlas in this revenue estate by means of Mutation No,52/ attested on 14-10-1959. Thereafter, the Armed Forces acquired another piece of land in this Revenue Estate measuring 17 Kanals and 15 Marlas by means of acquisition. Mutation No,254 was attested on 7-3-1960. In short from 1952 to 1960, Cantonment Bahawalpur/Armed Forces became the owner of 3325 Kanals and 5 Marlas and the possession of so alienated land commenced from the date of finalization of each transaction.
Ill-luck would have it, Notification No,29, dated 17-5-1955 was not incorporated in Mutation Register and so it was not embodied in record of rights. It was on 4-9-1990 when Mutation No,978 was attested wherein the land acquired through Notification No,29 was mutated in favour of Cantonment/Armed Forces. In this background, petitioners entered the litigation arena. Firstly, they filed a suit for declaration the plaint of which was rejected on 19-6-1987. Feeling still dissatisfied, petitioners filed a second suit for possession of the property in dispute but that too was dismissed on 5-12-1988. Frustrated with the above backdrop, it was one Muhammad Munawar who moved an application as attorney of petitioners on 19-11-1992. This application was addressed to Military Estate Officer, Multan. The aforesaid functionary found some merit in the application and forwarded it to Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur who sent a note to Commissioner for denitrifying the land mentioned in the Notification No,29 with regard to that land for which no compensation had been paid to petitioners. The circumstances of moving an application to Military Estate Officer and a note put up by the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur are simply ludicrous. It is not comprehensible as to under what provisions of law the attorney moved to Military Estate Officer and under what provision of law the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur sent a note to Commissioner. It is hardly necessary to note that Notification No,29 was issued on 17-5- 1955; that the Armed Forces had taken possession of the land acquired under it; that the owners' whose land had been acquired. Had obtained compensation. Clearly, the transaction/acquisition made under Notification No,29 was past and closed transaction and neither a Military Estate Officer nor Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur had any authority to reopen it under any provision of relevant applicable Statute i,e, Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The memorandum sent by Military Estate Officer and note written down by the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur, in my estimation was/is clearly without any lawful authority and so nullity in the eyes of law. On this state of affairs, I am constrained to hold that petitioners had no reason to bank upon the aforesaid instrument and no reliance whatsoever could be placed. Even otherwise these notes were based upon wholly fallacious assumptions. From the perusal of record annexed with the petition no document had been brought to my notice demonstrating the entitlement of petitioners. It is true that the petitioners/their predecessors-in-interest would be owners of some land in year 1952-53 when Notification No,29 was issued and acquired land was occupied by Armed Forces in due process of law. It is common ground between the parties that at that time Mauza Hansra was an unpartitioned revenue estate which comprised of 6187 Kanals and 19 Marlas with more than one co-sharers; that even the Muslims and Non-Muslims' Khata was not partitioned. This petition has been filed by 35 persons through attorney. It further appears that Karam Khatoon petitioner No,6 had died 20 years ago. Similarly, Jan Muhammad petitioner No,8 had also passed away eight years ago. Faiz Bakhsh/petitioner No,21, Ghaus Bakhsh/petitioner No,26, Mst. Anwar Mai/petitioner No,28, Mst. Murad Khatoon/petitioner No,30, Mst. Shah Khatoon/petitioner No,31, Mst. Kundan Mai/ petitioner No,33 had died much earlier before the filing of the instant petition. The perusal of the record shows that the mutation of inheritance of petitioner No,26 was attested on 18-10-1983. This is Mutation No,546. Although other petitioners named above had died but mutation of their inheritance had not been attested in favour of their legal heirs. This is the state of affairs with regard to entitlement of petitioners. This petition, as already noted, had been filed by attorney. The objection had been taken by the respondent that out of 35 petitioners, ten persons were dead and so dead persons could not constitute Muhammad Munawar as attorney. No effort whatsoever was made to contradict this position. Even the record of right lends support to the above contention. It is settled that Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is intended to do substantial justice between the parties and is not exercised in favour of those people who come to the Court with soiled hands and tortious designs and who suppress the material facts. See Tufail Muhammad v. Muhammad Zia Ullah Khan (PLD 1965 SC 269), Syed Shah v. Political Agent Bajaur (PLD 1981 Pesh. 57), Taza Gul v.
Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (1982 SCMR 11). The principle enunciated over there is fully attracted to facts and circumstances of case in hand. Petitioners have filed this petition on behalf of at least ten dead persons. This aspect of the case was not disclosed in the Constitutional petition. The attorney had appended with the petition the deed of attorney on behalf of the dead persons. In addition to it, the circumstance pertaining to earlier litigation was not brought to the notice of the Court. It is not in dispute that petitioners did file a suit for seeking declaration to the effect that they were owners of property in dispute in 1987 and the learned District Judge vide order, dated 19-6-1987 rejected the plaint of that suit. It is also not in contest between the parties that petitioners brought a suit for possession on 19-11-1992 too and that plaint was also rejected on 28-3-1993. Having regard to the aforesaid. Omissions and commissions on the part of the petitioners, I have reached a conclusion that this petition has been filed with tortious designs to rob the Defence Department. There is yet another aspect of the case. The petitioners want to claim enforcement of their fundamental right through the powers of the Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. For the aforesaid purpose, they were required to show clean legal right which was being infringed. See Khairud Din and others v. Settlement Commissioner and others (1988 'SCMR 988) and Muhammad Ali and others v. Government of Sindh (1986 CLC 1123). No effort whatsoever was made to do it. Petitioners have built their case on the note of Military Estate Officer, Milian and a note of the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur (Annexures C & D) respectively. Along with the petition the record of right relating to 1953, 1955 and 1956 was not appended. So much so that Jamabandi of the entire Mauza was not placed on record. The extracts of Jamabandi pertaining to Khata No,2 relating to 1985-86 were relied upon. This document was not sufficient in quality nor in quantity to show the entitlement of the petitioners in year 1955 when Notification No,29 had been issued and which was erroneously not incorporated in record of rights. On this state of affair, I have no difficulty in concluding that petitioners miserably failed to demonstrate infringement of clean and certain basic rights enforceable through Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. For the reasons stated above, this Constitutional petition is found to be wholly devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Petitioners shall pay the costs for proceedings to respondent.