2005 PLP 557 (YLR)

S.M. Masud for Respondent. Muhammad Usman Ghani, LAC/LDA. On 7‑5‑2002 Writ Petition No.53‑R of 1998 was decided by this Court. This petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. has been filed qua the same that the said order be set aside and the writ petition be dismissed with costs. The learned counsel contends that material facts as to Khasra No.353 of Mauza Ajodhia Pur Tehsil and District. Lahore, which formed part of a private housing scheme known as Rehman Abad had been suppressed and concealed from this Court, therefore, the judgment is liable to be set aside for that reason. 2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner who was present in Court in connection with the contempt proceedings in the same matter accepts notice and has opposed the application. It is urged that all these aspects have been considered by the Court on previous occasions in particular order dated 28‑10‑2004 and the matter cannot be re‑agitated over again. It is contended that this is a mala fide exercise to bypass and frustrate the orders passed by the Court. 3. It may be mentioned that Muhammad grant writ petitioner had approached this Court through a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 that though he was auction purchaser of land measuring 1 Kanal, 3 Marlas comprising Khasra No.353 situated in Ajodhia Pur Lahore, yet was not being given the developed plot despite the fact that his land had been acquired by Lahore Development Authority and fell within Muhammad Ali Johar Town Lahore. In view of the undisputed position about the ownership of the writ petitioner being purchaser in open auction, the writ petition was disposed of observing that: "In normal course of events, he should have by now been compensated in accordance with law. It is, however, pathetic that his application which he made on 30‑12‑1981 has remained unattended and un‑redressed. In this view of the matter, the application filed by the petitioner need to be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. Accordingly a direction is issued to respondents Nos.2 and 3 for expeditious disposal of the application of the petitioner preferably within a period of two months in accordance with law. " Since despite direction of the Court no action was taken by respondents Nos.2 and 3, for a long time Crl. Org. No.57‑W of 2004 was brought before this Court. In the reply submitted thereto, the same stance was taken that Khasra No.353 formed part of Rehman Abad a private scheme approved by the L.D.A. This was despite the fact that the judgment of this Court dated 7‑5‑2002 had not been assailed by the petitioner and had become final for all intents and purposes. In order, however, to examine the tenability of the plea of the present applicants in view of an order passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, L.D.A. dated 9‑10‑2004 the matter was considered over again in order dated 28‑10‑2004. In the said order also the Land Acquisition Collector took the view that the land was never acquired/taken over by the L.D.A. and the petitioner was not entitled to any compensation/exemption in lieu of the same. It may be mentioned that the basis of such a plea was a public notice dated 11‑5‑1978 which was relied upon to show that Khasra No. 353 formed part of a private scheme known as Rehman Abad. However, when the events and development that have taken place are considered in chronological and sequential order such a stance of the applicants becomes wholly untenable and worthless. Suffice it to mention that Muhammad Azam writ petitioner came into picture only when the land in dispute was purchased by him in open auction from the Settlement Department pursuant to the publication of a list of properties to be put .to auction on 25‑5‑1981. At serial Nos.84 to 92 were the plots comprising Khasra No.353 shown in the list as owned by the Central Government through Chief Settlement Commissioner which were to be put to auction. Plot at serial No.91 measuring 1 Kanals 3 Marlas was purchased by Muhammad, Azam by giving highest bid, who was then on payment of the price issued Transferred Deed on 14‑1‑1982. Corresponding mutation was also attested in his favour on 13‑11‑1982. The title of the writ petition thus had never remained in dispute as was the stance of Settlement Department noted by this Court in judgment dated 7‑5‑2002. A repeated stance is being taken that the property of the writ petitioner fell within Rehman Abad Scheme, which, however, on closer scrutiny of the material on the record is found as baseless. It runs counter to the notifications and public notice issued by the Lahore Development Authority itself. It may be mentioned over again that till the property in dispute was disposed of, in favour of the writ petitioner through public auction held on 26‑5‑1981, it was an evacuee/residual property owned as per the list mentioned above by the Central Government and possessed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. It could not possibly form part of any private scheme as is being suggested. Even notification dated 6‑11‑1980, issued under section 4 of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973, meant for Maulana Muhammad Ali Johar Town Scheme and latter notification issued on 5‑1‑1981 under section 13 of the Act, assuming control and possession of the land contradicts the stance of the Lahore Development Authority and belies even the worth of public notice dated 11‑5‑1978 meant for Rehman Abad Scheme. Moreover the public notice dated 15‑12‑1981 issued by the Land Acquisition Collector, Lahore Development Authority inviting ‑claims pursuant whereof, the writ petitioner had submitted his claim for exemption through application dated 30‑12‑1981 within the target date also belies the stance of the Authority. Repeated reference is being made to the award announced in the year 1981 to show that this Khasra number was not included therein. This aspect was considered by me in some detail in order dated 28‑10‑2004 in Crl. Org. No‑57‑W of 2004. It has been noticed that the then L.A.C., was conscious of the fact that some land was owned by the Central Government out of which the Department had disposed of some area from time to time through auction. In order, however, to verify the claims of such persons, it was left open that a supplementary award will be announced qua the land owned by the auction purchasers. 4. The writ petitioner was one of those unlucky who was victim of lethargy and indolence on the part of Authority. Suffice it to reiterate that a judgment in personam like the one in the instant writ petition binds the parties and has its legal efficacy qua their rights. Principle stated in Pir Bakhsh v. The Chairman, Allotment Committee and others PLD 1987 SC 145 gets attracted to such matters when the judgment becomes final. The writ petitioner an ordinary citizen of the country, who succeeded after consuming a long time must have hoped that his agony and misery had come to an end with the acceptance of his writ petition on 7‑5‑2002 but unfortunately this was not so and more than two years have even passed by and he is entangled in litigation and is still fighting for his right One is dismayed to observe such a conduct of public authority who is expected to honour, implement and respect the judicial orders. It is strange and upsetting that instead of taking remedial steps to compensate the writ petitioner his agony has been prolonged on grounds which do not hold good. This application under section 12(2), C.P.C. is another attempt to bypass and frustrate the orders passed by the Court. Besides, that ingredients of section 12(2), C.P.C. are lacking and the same is not attracted, I find that it is a mala fide and frivolous move which application is without any substance and merit, it is dismissal accordingly with costs of Rs.20,000. M.B.A./M‑759/L Application dismissed