1975 PLP 59 (SCMR)

ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑This order will dispose of civil petitions for special leave to appeal bearing Nos. 166, 167 and 168 of 1974, which proceed on identical facts. Certain areas of agricultural land, situate in Chak No. 255/EB, Tehsil Pakpattan in the Sahiwal district, were proposed in the game of the peti tioners in these three cases. However, by an order male by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakpattan, on 12‑8‑195 these proposals were cancelled and the areas in question were allotted to Faizan Ali, who is respondent No. 1 in all the three petitions. The petitioners thereupon filed appeals which were accepted by the Additional Rehabilitation Com missioner, by his order dated 7‑1‑53, and it was directed that land be con firmed in favour of the petitioners out of the allotments made to the respondent. This direction was implemented by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner by his order dated the 17th of August 1954. The revision petitions filed by the respondent to challenge the appellate orders of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner were dismissed by the Rehabilitation Commissioner on tile 20th of November 1956. Review petitions filed by the respondent were dismissed in default on the 13th of April 1960. However, the matter was re‑opened by the Chairman of the Allotment Committee, who confirmed the original allotments in favour of respondent No. I by his order dated the 16th. of March 1965. The petitioners challeng ed this order in appeals which were accepted by the Additional Rehabilita tion Commissioner by his order dated the 31st of May 1965. Now it was the turn of the respondent to go up to revision. The learned Rehabilitation Commissioner remanded the case to the Additional Rehabilitation Commis sioner by his order dated the 26th of August 1965. On remand the case came up before the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner on the 20th of April 1966, on which date the learned counsel appearing for the oppos ing parties made statements to the effect that a compromise had been arrived at between the parties, as a consequence of which Killas Nos. 1, 2 and 10 out of Sq. No. 27 were to be given to these petitioners, and the rest of the lands were to be allowed to remain with respondent No. 1. . The Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner disposed of the case in terms of this compromise. The petitioners, however, felt aggrieved by this order and filed revision petitions before the Rehabilitation Commissioner, which were, however, rejected on the 16th of June 1966, on the ground that' the order made by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner was in conformity with the compromise arrived at between the parties. The petitioners then filed three separate writ petitions in the Lahore High court, which have been dismissed by a learned Single Judge by his order dated the 22nd of November 1973, on the same ground, namely, that the matter having been settled on the basis of a compromise between the parties, there was no room for interference. Leave to appeal is sought on the following grounds :- (a) that the order made by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner in favour of the petitioners on 17‑8‑54 had attained finality and could not be subsequently interfered with by the Chairman of the Allot ment Committee; (b) that the Chairman, Allotment Committee, in his capacity as Ad ditional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner had no juris diction to re‑open the matter, and consequently his order dated the 16th of March 1965 was illegal and without lawful authority, and all subsequent orders based thereon were void; (c) that the alleged compromise relied upon by the Settlement and Rehabilitation authorities, as well as by the High Court, was never entered into by the petitioners, as it was only between another person Ghulam Nabi and the respondent, in an appeal which was also heard by the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner along with the three appeals filed by the present petitioners; and (d) that in any case the compromise based on a void order could have no legal sanctity. After hearing the learned counsel at some length and perusing the orders passed in these cases at various levels, we have reached the conclusion that this is not at all a fit case for our interference. Whatever the legality of the order made by the Chairman, Allotment Committee on the 16th of March 1965, the fact remains that in revision petitions filed against that order the whole matter was remanded to the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner for a fresh decision, and the petitioners participated in proceedings before that Officer, and during those proceedings the learned counsel for the peti tioners, namely Ch. Hassan Ali, Advocate, made a statement entering into a compromise with the opposite‑party. The terms of the compromise are clearly stated in the order passed by the Additional Rehabilitation Com missioner on the 20th of April 1966, and it is also recited that the state ments of the learned counsel on both sides had been recorded. It is true that this Officer has used the words "Ghulam Nabi etc.". While describing all the appellants before him on whose behalf Ch. Hassan Ali, Advocate, was appearing and acting, yet the order leaves no doubt that the learned counsel was entering into a compromise in all the appeals in which he was appearing for the appellants. The compromise was interpreted in this sense by the learned Rehabili tation Commissioner while disposing of revision petitions instituted by the petitioners against the order based on the compromise. It was further stated by this Officer that Ch. Hassan Ali, Advocate, had not denied the factum of compromise. We have perused the grounds of revision in all the three cases and we find that there was indeed no denial by Ch. Hassan Ali, Advocate in respect of the compromise, nor was there any assertion that he had entered into the compromise only on behalf of the appellant Ghulam Nabi, and not on behalf of these petitioners. Learned counsel's contention in the three revision petitions was that the compromise did not cover the satisfaction of the remaining units of the petitioners. In these circum stances it appears to us, the Rehabilitation Commissioner as well as the learned Judge in the High Court were right in holding that the order based on a compromise between the parties could not be allowed to be varied at the instance of the petitioners, On this view of the matter, it is not necessary to examine the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. All the three petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Petitions dismissed.