JAN MUHAMMAD Versus SECRETARY (EP)/NOTIFIED OFFICER

1. Petitioners through this constitutional petition have assailed the judgments, dated 8‑4‑1989 and 1‑1‑1990 passed by the learned Member, Board of Revenue in revision as well as in review respectively dismissing their claim to the disputed property.

2. Facts in brief are that one Raja Ayyub Khan was allotted disputed land under Mangla Dam Oustees Scheme on 5‑‑10‑1966. The proprietary rights qua this land were conferred upon him by the Collector on 3‑4‑1988. Thereafter, respondents Nos.2 to 5 purchased this land for a consideration of Rs.9,15,000 on 3‑5‑1988. The present petitioners challenged this action on ground that the proprietary rights could not have been conferred as the disputed land fell within the prohibitory zone. The Addl. Commissioner (Revenue) Sargodha Division, Sargodha vide his order, dated 15‑1‑1989 accepted the appeal and remanded the case to E.A.C. to determine this aspect afresh. Aggrieved with this order, the respondents Nos.2 to 5 filed a revision petition and the learned Member Board of Revenue accepted the revision and set aside the appellate order through its order, dated 4‑1‑1989. The petitioners filed a review petition which too was dismissed on 21‑1‑1989. Hence this Constitutional, petition.

3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the disputed lands fall within the prohibitory zone and the same could not have been allotted to the respondents' predecessor‑in‑interest Raja Ayyub Khan. It has further been argued that the disputed land was not included in the Schedule prepared for the allotment to Mangla Dam Oustees.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has stated that as far as the point respecting the situation of the land is concerned, learned Member Board of Revenue had stated categorically in the impugned order that the question with regard to the prohibitory zone had already been examined at length at the time of allotment on 5‑10‑1966 and again through 'Inspection Team and finally by the Tehsildar. Learned counsel has further stated that the petitioners have not come to this Court with .clean hands as they have filed a suit on 29‑4‑1989 before the Civil Court at Sargodha impugning the same judgments. Lastly, it has been argued that the point whether the disputed land was mentioned in the Schedule or not, has been taken for the first time in the Constitutional jurisdiction. He has also challenged the locus standi of the petitioners to assail the order of the allotment of Raja Ayyub Khan to Mangla Dam Oustees without impleading him as party in this writ petition.

5. I have considered the contentions. This writ petition merits dismissal simply on the ground that the petitioners have approached this Court with un clean hands as they have not mentioned riling of the suit qua this very land. The argument of the learned counsel that the lands fall within the prohibitory zone, is not sustainable in view of the observation as earlier quoted by the learned Member Board of Revenue in the impugned judgment wherein he has been categorically mentioned that this aspect has been examined‑by different agencies, as such it is too late in the day to reopen this issue. The other argument of the learned counsel that certain killas which were not initially mentioned in the allotment had wrongly been incorporated in the order conferring proprietary rights, is devoid of any force, as the same was' inadvertently omitted though approved in the original order by the Collector in his order, dated 30‑9‑1966 wherein total land had been shown as 91 Kanals. This shows that both these killas were included in the order, dated 30‑9‑1966 but inadvertently were not mentioned in the order, dated 5‑10‑1966, as such no exception can be taken to this course of action. The land was allotted as far back as in the year 1966 under, a valid scheme to Raja Ayyub Khan, who after the conferment of the proprietary rights had transferred the same to the respondents. Keeping all the features of the case and the conduct of the petitioners into‑consideration, I do not rind any force in this writ petition which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

6. A.A./M‑329/L Petition dismissed.