1987 PLP 664 (SCMR)

Accordingly, both the learned counsel and Mr. Muhammad Shafi, Senior Clerk, Colony Lease Branch, Board of Revenue, Lahore, have presented a compromise signed by each one of them with a view to be made into an order of this Court. In view of said compromise placed on record today, this petition is converted into appeal and is allowed in terms of the compromise. There shall be no order as to costs." The compromise referred in the above‑reproduced order reads as follows ; "Both the parties agreed that the excess land which is disputed measuring 40 Kanals 17 Marlas be allotted to the respondent on payment of average market price of the preceding 12 months of the Chak plus double the rent from the date of allotment and plus 10$ surcharge on account of sale by private treaty in view of the letter No. 6308/$3/2159/CL‑III, dated 18‑7‑1983. ??????????? (Sd.)??? ?????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????? (Sd.) Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem,??????????? ?????????????????????? Gulzar Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate???????? ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Advocate for respondent. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? for petitioner. ??????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (Sd. ) ??????????? (Muhammad Shafi) ??? ??????? Senior Clerk ??????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????? Colony Lease Branch ??????????? B. O. R. Lahore." We, on account of the change of Government policy indicated in the order passed in Civil Appeal No.12 of 1987, converted Civil Petition No.143 of 1980 into appeal and asked Ali Ahmad respondent whether he would agree .. to the arrangement made by the parties in the previous case (Civil Appeal No.12 of 1987). He stated that he would agree to pay the amount which is found legally due for the excess area. According to him the calculation of the amount should be made with reference to the date of the application for grant of proprietary rights and not with reference to the market value at any subsequent time including the present market value. Mr. Wahla, the learned counsel for Shah Muhammad respondent in Civil Appeal No.9 of 1987 took similar position and stated that his client is ready to pay the additional amount for the so‑called excess land but his right to object to the manner of determination of the amount, should be kept in tact. Mr. Gulzar Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellants agreed that the question of the amount to be paid by the respondents under the changed policy should be kept open to be determined by the concerned authorities after hearing the persons concerned. Accordingly, the parties in these two matters requested that in view of what has been stated by them both the appeals should be disposed of accordingly leaving the parties to bear their own costs. We, therefore, dispose of the appeals accordingly There shall be no order as to costs. Before parting with this matter, it needs to be observed that if a decision by the concerned authority favourable to the respondents in these two matters on the question of determination of the amount is made then it will be open for the authority to follow the same in Civil Appeal No.12 of 1987, in fairness to the respondent therein; notwithstanding his agreement to the contrary as no law would in that case bar on equal treatment to the persons concerned. M.I./P‑2/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly