Law: Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912

Section: 32, 34

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Colonization of Government Land Act, 1912 (V of 1912)--

----Ss. 32 & 34--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Cultivating possession--Lease of suit land in name of respondent--Right of utilization--Petitioners were retained possession without payment of rental dues--Pendency of revision petition--Application for correction of record--Legitimate lease holder--Ejectment of illegal occupants--Appeal was dismissed--Concealment of material facts--Government of Punjab leased out suit land to Respondent No. 7 from 1995 to 2045 with all rights of its utilization in all respect--It is well settled that law always leans in favour of law abiding persons and lends nil support to illegal occupants, usurpers, transgressors, encroachers and land grabbers of state land--Revision Petition of petitioners was pending before Board of Revenue and, applications of petitioners for getting proprietary rights were pending before Member, Board of Revenue--Petitioners filed application for correction of revenue record which was also pending before Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab--It is settled law that if any litigation is pending between parties before any competent forum, then constitutional petition is not maintainable--The petitioners, while filing these writ petitions did not disclosed filing and dismissal of writ petitions and committed concealment of material facts, which concealment was analogous to committing of fraud, as such, they had not come to High Court with clean hands and on that score alone these writ petitions were liable to be dismissed--Petitioners were adamant to hold and continue possession on state land leased to Respondent No. 7 without making payment of single penny without having order of any allotment, lease etc--They were patently illegal occupants/ who had come to High Court with soiled hands thus they were not entitled for any discretionary equitable relief and High Court was well within its competence to withheld its discretion even if order impugned in that petitions would had been illegal--Petition dismissed.

2014 SCMR 1351; 2014 SCMR 334; PLJ 2001 SC 270;
1999 SCMR 2380; PLD 2001 SC 26; 2007 SCMR 49; 2010 SCMR 1840 and PLD 1991 SC 691 ref.

 

ORDER

Through this single judgment, I intend to decide the titled Writ Petition along with connected Writ Petition No. 60440/2021 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions.