AHMED DIN and another vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
This petition challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition regarding the allotment of land to Islamabad affectees. The petitioners, who lacked any legal title or allotment rights, sought to challenge the Board of Revenue's order, which had favored the private respondents under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme. The petitioners admitted they were in illegal possession of the land as trespassers, arguing they were entitled to shelter from the government. The core legal question was whether trespassers possess the locus standi to challenge the lawful allotment of land made to third parties under a government scheme. The Supreme Court held that trespassers have no legal right to maintain a constitutional petition against the lawful allotment of land to others. The Court affirmed that illegal occupants cannot contest the rights of legitimate allottees and must seek alternative remedies for shelter independently from the government. The judgment reinforces the principle that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked by parties lacking a legal interest or title to the subject matter, particularly when they are mere trespassers.
- Does a trespasser have the locus standi to challenge the lawful allotment of land to third parties?
- Can a party without legal title or interest in the disputed land maintain a constitutional petition?
- Is the claim of a right to shelter a valid legal ground for a trespasser to challenge the allotment of land under a government scheme?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment dated 18-10-1999 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, through which Constitutional petition filed by the petitioners against the order dated 3-5-1984 of the Board of Revenue has been dismissed.
2. The land in dispute was allotted to the private respondents as Islamabad affectees. This land was included in Islamabad Oustees Scheme for providing compensation to the persons who were affected by acquisition of their land for construction of capital area in Islamabad.
3. The petitioners who are not allottees of any portion of the land in dispute under any scheme had filed writ petition before the High Court after a period of 12 years of the order dated 4-8-1986 passed by the Board of Revenue in revision petition filed by Iqbal and Qurban against the residents of Chak No,47/EB in which the petitioners were not party.
4. It appears from the impugned judgment of the High Court that learned counsel for the petitioners appearing before the said Court was asked to point out any documentary evidence to show that the petitioners were in possession of any portion of the land who relied upon Annexure 'A-1' appended with the petition. The learned Judge of the High Court found after appraisal of the said documents that Islamabad affectees were shown to be owners of the land in the said document and one Allah Yar was shown in possession of 12 Kanals out of that under an agreement of sale from the said owners. The said Allah Yar was found to have had recourse to the Civil Court by filing suit in which he failed. The appeal filed by him was dismissed by the First Appellate Court and revision petition filed before the High Court was also dismissed. He then filed Civil Petition No,1211-L of 1995 before this Court which was dismissedon 7-11-1995 a copy of which judgment is available on the record of this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners when questioned as to how and in what manner, the petitioners claimed any nexus with the land in dispute muchless any right under any law submitted that they were in illegal possession of the land as trespassers and as they were entitled to retain the same as Government was legally bound to provide them shelter as was done in the case of such occupants by sanctioning 5 Marlas Scheme by providing land elsewhere to accommodate such persons.
6. We are afraid, if this ground could be a ground available in law B to contest the claim of allottees under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme of the land in dispute trespasser could not claim any right to maintain the Constitutional petition. The petitioners should have independently approached the Government for providing them shelter and not to challenge the allotment of land made lawfully in favour of the respondents as Islamabad affectees under a scheme framed for them known as Islamabad Oustees Scheme in which this land was included.
7. The judgment impugned in this petition of the High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity, therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and .