Mian MUHAMAD RASHID QADRI vs PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional writ petition. The petitioner had challenged an order of the Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner reserving a parcel of land, upon which the petitioner had constructed rooms, for the construction of a primary school, after the petitioner's earlier allotment application via an R.P. Form was rejected. The core legal question was whether a trespasser invoking constitutional jurisdiction can claim state or settlement land reserved for public purposes. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was admittedly a trespasser with no legal basis to claim the property, that departmental circulars concerning State or Nazul land were inapplicable, and that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to perpetuate property secured through illegal means. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition and declined leave to appeal, affirming that discretionary constitutional remedies are rightly withheld from trespassers.
- Can a trespasser invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to claim state land?
- Whether constitutional jurisdiction can be utilized to perpetuate property secured through illegal means?
- Does a circular applicable to the disposal of State or Nazul land apply to a trespasser lacking any legal basis for allotment?
ORDER
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 10-8-2000 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby petitioner's Writ Petition No,140/R of 2000 was dismissed.
2. ' The facts briefly narrated are that-the petitioner filed aforesaid writ petition laying claim to land measuring 2 Kanals, 2 Marlas comprising Khasra No,191, Khata No,101 in village Kotli Loharan, Tehsil Cantt. Lahore, whereon he had constructed some rooms. The petitioner through the above writ petition challenged the order, dated 19-8-1999 of the Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner whereby the above property had been reserved for construction of a primary school.
3. Learned counsel has stated that the petitioner earlier made an application on 5-11-1977 for allotment of the disputed property and submitted R.P. Form which had been rejected through order, dated 19-8-1999 on the ground that the land in dispute had already been reserved for construction of a primary school.
4. ' We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have gone through the documents placed on record. We have noticed that the petitioner is admittedly a trespasser and has got no legal basis to claim the disputed property which has already been reserved for a noble and public purpose. Circular letter, dated 12-10-1993 of the Board of Revenue relied upon by the petitioner is certainly not attracted to his case as the same is applicable to the disposal of State land/Nazul land. Apart from this, the learned Judge has rightly refused to exercise Constitutional jurisdiction as the same cannot be invoked to perpetuate the gain/property secured through illegal means.
5. ' In view of what has been stated above, the instant petition being without any merit is accordingly dismissed and leave declined.
Cited by 1 case
- Zahid Naseem and others vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others 2019 CLC 830, 2020 PLD Islamabad 130, 2019 IHC 28