1991 PLP 833 (CLC)

Mian Abdul Latif for Petitioner. Muhammad Sair Ali for Respondents Nos.1 to

10. Date of hearing: 4th April, 1990. Muhammad Nusrat, Naib‑Tehsildar, Sheikhupura has produced the record leading to the disposal of application of Sadiq Ali, predecessor‑in‑title of respondents Nos.1 to 10 by A.C./D.R.C., Sheikhupura. The learned Assistant Commissioner/D.R.C., Sheikhupura had passed the order dated 6‑2‑1989 purportedly in implementation of this Court's orders dated 10‑2‑1971 and 22‑10 1984 (passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 452‑R/1964 and 433‑R/1964 and in Appeals filed by the petitioners side) cancelling a part of the lands allotted to petitioners' predecessor in title, namely, Qudratullah son of Karim Bakhsh at Khata No.535 of Register RL‑11 Mauza Raehand Tehsil Sheikhupura and ordered its restoration in favour of Sadiq Ali, predecessor‑in‑title of respondents Nos.1 to 10 at Khata No.317 of the said village. Tehsildar Sheikhupura was also directed to reflect the implementation as above in the Revenue Record.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has mainly challenged the afore referred order dated 6‑2‑1989 on the ground that re‑calculation of the P.I.U value of the lands abandoned by Sadiq Ali, predecessor‑in‑title of respondents Nos.1 to 10 in India was not undertaken as directed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation mentioned above. He also referred to copy of order dated 16 1‑1989 (Annex.0) passed by District Collector, Sheikhupura on petitioners' application calling upon Assistant Commissioner/D.R.C. to calculate the Units of Sadiq Ali, predecessor‑in‑title of respondents Nos.1 to 10 a new and submit a detailed report to him and submitted that the learned A.C. did not undertake the process on the incorrect premise that the same could not be done because it was found to be correctly made in the record.

3. Mr. Muhammad Sair Ali, Advocate, who is representing respondents Nos.1 to 10 at this stage submitted that the direction by this Court for calculating the Units of his clients has not been complied with so far and that he has no objection to this petition being accepted and the case remitted to the concerned Notified Officer for undertaking the calculation according to the observation dated 10‑2‑1971 in Writ Petitions Nos. 452‑R/64 and 453‑R/64.

4. A perusal of the material placed on the record also shows that the direction issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation has not been complied with so far. Be that as it may, in view of the concession made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.1 to 10, 1 am inclined to dispose of this petition as a notice case by setting aside the order dated 6‑2‑1989 and remand the case to respondents No.11 to calculate the P.I.U‑value ‑of the lands of Sadiq Ali, predecessor‑in‑title of respondents Nos.1 to 10 in the presence of the parties and consultation of the relevant record. Order accordingly. The learned Assistant Commissioner/D.R.C, Sheikhupura shall summon the parties at his end and dispose of the case before him expeditiously. H.B.T/M‑2748/L Order accordingly.