MUHAMMAD DIN Versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR
The petitioners challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed their constitutional petition as infructuous. The petitioners had been granted land under a Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme, but were refused proprietary rights for a portion of the land, which authorities claimed was reserved under a different scheme. While the constitutional petition was pending, the High Court directed the District Collector to determine the petitioners' entitlement. The Collector subsequently issued an order granting proprietary rights for certain areas but excluding others. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous, noting that the petitioners' grievance regarding the specific exclusion could be agitated through appropriate departmental appeals or revisions. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, reasoning that the original purpose of the constitutional petition—to compel the authorities to determine entitlement—had been fulfilled. The Court held that since the Collector had passed an order, the petitioners must exhaust their departmental remedies rather than seeking premature adjudication of the merits of the exclusion in constitutional proceedings. Leave to appeal was refused, as the High Court correctly left the petitioners to pursue available statutory remedies.
- Can a constitutional petition be dismissed as infructuous once the administrative authority has passed an order determining the petitioner's entitlement?
- Should a court adjudicate the merits of a land allotment dispute when departmental remedies are available to the aggrieved party?
- Is a constitutional petition the appropriate forum to challenge the exclusion of specific land from proprietary rights when an administrative determination has already been made?
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J. --The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 8-4-1986 whereby their petition was dismissed as in-fructuous.
2. The petitioners had been granted land on 5-10-1974 under Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme for a period of five years from Kharif 1974 to Rabi 1979. When it came to conferment of proprietary rights in accordance with the Scheme, they were refused the conferment of proprietary rights of a portion of the land which had been reserved under another Scheme and was not at all available for allotment to the petitioners or anyone else under Temporary Cultivation Scheme.
3. The petitioners had instituted the constitutional petition at a stage when the Collector had not passed any order determining their entitlement. Pending the disposal of the constitutional petition and on a direction from the High Court, the Collector passed an order determining their entitlement to the area allotted and in their cultivating possession excluding that which could not be allotted to them being reserved under another Scheme and also that which was not in their cultivation. On this view of the matter, the learned Judge in the High Court passed the order as hereunder:--
"As noted above, petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 to 11 have been held eligible to the grant of proprietary rights in terms of the notification dated 3-9-1979 and they have been granted proprietary rights by the District Collector to the extent permissible in respect of the lands specified in his order dated 2-3-1986 and the petitioners No. 6 and 7 have been held disentitled to the grant of proprietary rights. Case of the petitioners for the grant of proprietary rights having thus been decided, this petition has become infructuous. If the petitioners feel aggrieved against the order of the District Collector dated 2-3-1986, they may agitate against it in appropriate proceedings. With these observations, this petition stands disposed of but with no order as to costs."
4. Mr. Sajjad Jafri, Advocate, the learned counsel contended that though the petitioners have got a determination from the Collector and the same can be agitated in appeal and revision, he could demonstrate that the area which is considered excluded and reserved under another Scheme was not so reserved and excluded. The petitioners, according to him, were entitled to conferment of proprietary rights in the entire allotment.
5. The judgment impugned by this petition leaves it entirely open for the petitioners to pursue their departmental and other remedies against the order of the Collector dated 2-3-1986 and there is no question of deciding that issue pre-maturely before it has been decided in the hierarchy by the departmental officers. Besides, the constitutional petition as originally instituted concerned itself with the failure of the authorities charged with the duty of determining entitlement to determine it. That relief having been granted by the intercession of the High Court, the constitutional petition was rightly disposed of as in-fructuous. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
M.I. /M-211/S Petition dismissed