1991 PLP 423 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑‑ The facts which form the background are that the agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 1423 to 1426, 1428, 1429 and 1495 measuring 221 kanals 8 marlas situate in Mauza Bhekewal, Tehsil and District Lahore was confirmed to Shujaat Ali, respondent No.4, on 22‑9‑1971 at Khata No. 893 by the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Lahore, Similarly Mirza Badar‑ud‑Din respondent No.5, was also confirmed agricultural land bearing Khasra Nos. 1427, 1415, 1422, 1482, 1491, 1492 and 1428 measuring 99 kanals 6 marlas at Khata No.899 in village Bhekewal, Tehsil and District Lahore, by the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Lahore dated 16‑2‑1972. . The case of the petitioners is that on 29‑9‑1973 Shujaat Ali, respondents No.4, the confirmed allottee of area measuring 221 Kanals 18 marlas entered into an agreement to sell the entire land to the petitioners for a consideration of Rs.5,54,750 out of which a sum of Rs.5,04,750 was received by the allottee. Similarly, Mirza Badar‑ud‑Din, respondent No.5, also executed an agreement to sell on 18‑9‑1973 his entire area for a consideration of Rs.2,48,250 out of which a sum of Rs.2,20,000 was paid to the allottee. However, in the meantime it transpired that the land in question alongwith some other land was sold by the Government of the Punjab (respondent No.2) in favour of University of the Punjab (respondent No.3) for a Housing Scheme vide Letter No. 2003/AQN/SALES/LHR/3/PB/74 dated 20‑3‑1.974 under section 10(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Since, in the view of the petitioners, the sale of the land in dispute in favour of respondent No.3, effected through Government of the Punjab letter dated 29‑3‑1974 referred to above, was unlawful and void and it did not frustrate the agreements to sell executed by respondents Nos.4 and 5 in favour of the petitioners in respect of the said land, the petitioners challenged the sale of the land in question in favour of the Punjab University (respondent No.3) by filing a writ petition (W.P.No.331‑R of 1976). This writ petition was heard alongwith 5 other writ petitions raising common questions c,f fact and law and dismissed vide judgment dated 6‑4‑1988, the main judgment having been delivered in Writ Petition No.89‑R of 1973. While dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners it has been observed as follows: "The petition (W.P. No.331‑R‑76) filed by Fazalur Rehman and Abdul Rashid is liable to be dismissed as stated by the allottees had only executed agreement to sell the allotted land to them. No right in the land as such came to vest on the basis of the alleged (sic). The allottees have not entered appearance in this petition. On the basis of the agreement to sell, the petitioners cannot maintain this petition. This petition as such is liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone." Mr. SA. Mannan, on behalf of the petitioners, has challenged this view and drawn our attention to the decisions of this Court reported as Joydeb Agarwala v. Baitulmal Karkhana Limited (PLD 1965 SC 37), Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore and another (PLD 1969 SC 223) and Ali Muhammad v. Shera and another (1987 SCMR 207) that a prospective vendee or a person likely to be affected has a locus standi to institute and maintain a writ petition. We agree, but we are of the opinion that in so far as the allotments made in favour of the vendors of the petitioners namely Shujat Ali and Mirza Badar‑ud‑Din ficmsclves wcre not legal and proper, as held by the High Court‑‑a finding with which we; agree, the petitioners had no case even on the merits. It may be pointed out that the allotment made in favour of Shujaat Ali in village Bhakewal was found to have been obtained fraudulently and illegaly by the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner (S.Walayat Ali Bokhari) vide order dated 30‑7‑1976, on his own statement. This petition cannot, therefore, succeed and is, accordingly, dismissed here. A.A./F‑190/S Petition dismissed.