1983 PLP 2313 (CLC)

Nemo for Appellant. Sh. Muhammad Sha,1C for Respondent. Date of hearing‑ : 21st June, 1982. FAZAL‑E‑MAHMOOD, J.‑This Intra‑Court Appeal arises as a result of refusal by a learned Single Judge to grant the writ rayed for by the appellants.

2. The appellants before us are adversely affected by the decision of the Board of Revenue who reserved land for the Ex‑Army personnel s. It is the case of the appellants that they have been lessees of some of the land covered by this reservation and they are being uprooted at a stage when after toiling for years they had developed the lands with much expense and labour. ‑The chief grievance of the appellants is to the effect that they are entitled to a similar treatment as other affected lessees of the State land but even‑handed treatment is beine denied to them without any justification. In other words, their case is that the statutory functionaries have made a. departure from the principle of dispensing even handed justice, to persons in identical situations which is vitiative of their impugned actions and orders.

3. We are not required in the circumstances of this case to give an elaborate adjudication for the reason that the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has made a statement in Court which has been recorded separately to the effect that the petitioner would also be given similar treatment as other lessees of the State land covered by the reservation of such lands for Ex‑Army personnels.

4. There is ample authority for the view that a writ can be issued on an admission made in the face of the Court. Shahbaz Khan Appellant No.1 appeared in person for himself and on behalf of the other appellants In fact the statement of the learned counsel was the result of a compromise course after .preliminary discussion and submissions made by the appel lants and the Departmental representatives. Both the parties pray before us that the Intra‑Court Appeal may be disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. We are satisfied that the compromise is lawful. Even otherwise a compromise course advances public policy and is in consonance with public interest as it shortens n litigation. We, therefore, feel no hesitation in allowing this lawful compromise.

5. There was a certain amount of apprehension in the mind ~; the appellants that the respondents may not give them the land or equal value and quality compared to that of which they are being deprived. The learned counsel for the respondent, Sh. Muhammad Shay who is. accompanied by the officials from the Board of Revenue as, well as the. District administration has assured that the respondents, shall give to the appellants similar land of which they are being deprived.

6. We may, for facility of reference, incorporate in our order the, terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The appellants shall deposit with the respondents the amount of lease money due from them till 30th September, 1982. The appellants shall not be dis possessed from the land presently in their occupation until they have been. given the alternative State land. It has also been agreed that the respondents shall on the payment of the aforesaid arrears give even handed treatment to the appellants as was meted out to about 30 other persons who have been provided alternative culturable State land. The proposal in fact was made by the learned counsel for the respondents which was accepted by the appellants.

7. In view of what has been noted above, we would accept this Intra‑Court Appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge. We further direct that the respondents shall provide alternative cultur able State land to the appellants on their paying up the arrears by the due date and that the State land so given to the appellants shall be of comparable quality qua the land. from which they are to be dispossessed. In keeping with the spirit of the compromise, if the appellants fail to discharge their part of the obligation by tendering the lease money by the agreed date, the respondents shall stand absolved of their obligations as well. There shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. M.Y.M. Appeal allowed