1988 PLP 1156 (MLD)

KHALIL‑UR‑REHMAN KHAN, J.‑‑This judgment will dispose of six constitution petitions (W.Ps. Nos.89‑8,124‑R for 1973, 623‑R, 624‑8 for 1975, 331‑R and 402‑R for 1976) as common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions.

2. The facts necessary for understanding the controversy raised in these ‑petitions are that in order to meet the growing need of the University of Punjab, the Lahore Improvement Trust, made provision under the Greater Lahore Scheme framed in 1944 for shifting of the University Campus to an area measuring 2,200 acres falling between Ferozepur Road and Multan Road, 3 miles away from the existing Campus. The scheme was not yet finalized when Partition took place in 1947 and then in 1950 the Punjab Government set up a University Commission which submitted its report in 1953 recommending that the site earlier marked by the Trust in the Scheme framed by it in 1944 be utilized for shifting of the Campus. The proposal was accepted by the Provincial Government and a direction was given to the Trust to frame a Development Scheme for construction of the New Campus for the University. The scheme was ultimately notified under section 36 of the Town Improvement Act in Daily newspapers appearing on 10th and 16th of April, 1954 inviting objections from all concerned. As part of the land belonged to the evacuees Notices were separately sent to the Custodian Evacuee Properties and the Rehabilitation Commissioner. The scheme was ultimately sanctioned by the Provincial Government and published in the official Gazette dated 24‑1‑1957. The Trust was authorised to acquire the land included in the scheme which according to the revised scheme measured 2478 acres. The University Campus was extended over an area measuring 1615 acres. A part of the land to be acquired was situated in village Bhekewal and the possession of this land in this village was taken over by the Collector on 26‑6‑1958. The award was also made and the Custodian Evacuee Properties agreed to the rate of compensation and accepted tentatively the award. The Collector also pronounced the final award in respect of the land situated in the three estates on different dates. The University paid Rs. twenty lacs to the Trust and started raising construction of its New Campus.

3. Rizwan Cooperative Society petitioner icy four petitions was registered in 1953 with the object of acquiring land and providing building sites to its members. The land selected for this purpose was situated in village Bhekewal. Approval of the Central Government under section 16(3)(b) of the Pakistan Administration of 1 Evacuee Property Act. XII of 1957, for the purchase of 2508 kanals and 7 marlas evacuee land was obtained, The Custodian authorised the sale in consultation with the Deputy C`.;An5asiorer, Lahore and sale price of Rs.6,27,087 was also deposited by the Society and thereupon formal sale‑deed was executed in favour of the society, on 1‑5‑1964. The society also commenced the building operations which came to the notice of the Lahore Improvement Trust Lahore and Punjab University. The Trust applied to the Custodian of Evacuee Properties for cancellation of the sale to the society on the plea that the said land stood already acquired by it and the title had passed on to the Trust under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. The application was rejected and thereupon the Trust filed writ petition in the High Court impleading amongst others the Custodian, the Society and the University as respondents. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on 26‑5‑1969 (See Lahore Improvement Trust v. The Custodian, Evacuee Property P L D 1970 Lah. 257). The matter then went before the Supreme Court and vide judgment dated 20‑10‑1971 Lahore Improvement Trust v. Custodian of Evacuee Property P L D 1971 S C 811 the appeal was allowed. The operative part of the judgment of the Supreme Court may be reproduced:‑ "For the foregoing reasons we allow both the appeals, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court passed in Writ Petition No.1142 of 1965 on 26th May, 1969, and declare that the sale of the land described in the writ petition by the Custodian of Evacuee Property to the Society under the sale‑deed executed by him on Ist of May, 1964, was without lawful authority and direct him to cancel the sale‑deed and to refund to the Society the sum of Rs.6,27,037.50 paid by the Society to him as sale price". The petitioner society preferred a review petition before the Supreme Court contending that out of 2508 kanals 7 marlas of land sold to the Society land measuring 406 kanals 1 marla, of the Khasra numbers detailed in the writ petition, did not form part of the scheme prepared by the Lahore Improvement Trust and as such have not been acquired by it for the purpose of the Punjab University Campus and hence it should be treated to have been validly sold to the petitioner society. This review petition filed in 1971 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 17‑4‑1978 (Rizwan Co‑operative Society Ltd. v. Custodian of Evacuee Property and others 1978 S C M R 449). The learned Judges of the Supreme Court in this decision observed:‑ "In order to succeed, the exclusion of the Khasra numbers should have been patent on the record which is not so. Therefore, on a point of principle, even otherwise this contention cannot be entertained for, it was not raised either in the High Court or at the hearing of the appeal." At this stage it is pertinent to note that the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 20‑10‑1971 held that the sale of the land by the Custodian to the society under the sale‑deed dated 1‑5‑1964 was without lawful authority and had directed him to cancel the sale‑deed and to refund to the society the entire sale price paid by it. Rizwan Co‑operative Society Ltd., the petitioner submitted an application to the Settlement Authorities to allow sale of the land measuring 406 kanals marla as the same had not been acquired by the Trust. This request was made while steps were being taken to implement the decision of the Supreme Court. On this move of the petitioner society, the Settlement Authorities entered into correspondence with the University Authorities and invited their comments about the request made by the society to sell the land to it. Reference be made to letter‑, bearing No.47‑R dated 28‑2‑1972 and 2198/AQN/LHR‑3/72 dated 13‑9‑1972. The Settlement Authorities in compliance with the decision of the Supreme Court set aside the sale of land in favour of the society and got incorporated a fresh mutation No.2644 dated 12‑3‑1973 mutating the entire land including the land measuring 416 kanals 1 marla in the, name of the Central Government as forming part of the compensation pool constituted under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement Act. The controversy in this petition pertains to this land measuring 406 kanals 1 'marla.

4. It will be recapitulated that the petitioner society sought to retain the land on the plea that the same did not form part of the land acquired by the Trust by filing a Review Petition before the Supreme Court but the same was rejected vide judgment dated 17‑4‑1978. The Punjab University also moved for the sale of this very land for providing residential accommodation to the members of the Punjab University Academic Staff Association. This very land was got allotted by various persons either through allotment orders or by filing Mukhbari applications or appeals against the allotment orders so obtained by different persons. The history of these allotments is as under:‑ (i) land measuring 207 kanals 13 marlas was allotted in the name of Syed Badarul Hassan vide order dated 19‑12‑1972; (ii) land measuring 104 kanals 12 marlas was allotted to Qureshi Abdur Rehman by order dated 29‑12‑1972; (iii) land measuring 10 kanals 18 marlas was allotted in the name of Professor Muhammad Usman vide order dated 23‑1‑1973; (iv) land measuring 42 kanals was allotted in the name of Ali Muhammad vide order dated 1‑2‑1973. A Mukhbari application was filed, against the allotment of the land obtained by Syed Badarul Hassan under sections 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, by Mst.Noor Jehan, Abdus Salam and Ahmad Khan. The allotment was held to be invlaid and hence cancelled with the direction that the said land be allotted to the afore‑mentioned informers. Ti seas done vide order dated 25‑3‑1974. Except for Professor Muhammad Usman the other allottees have statedly sold their entire holdings to other persons including Bashira Ahmad, Liaqat Ali and Chiragh Din. These allotments have been challenged by the petitioner society by filing four constitution petitions.

5. The two other orders dated 22‑9‑1971 and 16‑12‑1972 allotting the land measuring 322 kanals 4 marlas out of the dispute land measuring 406 kanals 1 marla in favour of Shujat Ali and Mirza Badaruddin are available on record. These allottees satedly entered into an agreement to sell the land with Fazalur Rehman and Abdul Rashid the petici0ners in constitution petition (W.P.331‑R of 1916). The stand taken by the Settlement Authorities in the comments submitted respecting the allotments obtained by Shujat All and Mirza Badaruddin is that the allotment order appear to be bogus and that the inquiry instituted in this respect has not yet been finalized. The result of the enquiry `vas not intimated to this Court. Fazalur Rehman and Abdur Rashid the petitioners in their petition (W.P.331-R of 1976) in view of the allotment orders made in favour of Shujat Ali and Mirza Badaruddin claimed quashment of the allotment orders obtained by the other allottees on the plea that the allotments made in their favour being subsequent in time were illegal as the same land could not be allotted to others without first legally cancelling the allotment made in favour of Shujat Ali and .Mirza Badaruddin. It was argued that the question of allotting the same land either by filing Mukhbari application under sections 10/11 or by Filing an appeal under section 18 of the Act does not arise.

6. The Punjab University and the Academic Staff Association in their petition (W.P.402‑R of 1976) have challenged. the order dated 25‑3‑1974 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner whereby the Mukhbari application of Ahmad Khan and others was accepted against the allotment obtained by Badarul Hassan etc. and direction was', made that the land be allotted to the informers against their pending P.I. Units. It was pleaded that the entire land in dispute was sold to the Punjab University for the purpose of Academic Staff Association Punjab vide sanction order dated 29‑3‑1974 and during the pendency of the request of sale and without implementing the directions of the Supreme Court, Officers of the Settlement Department acted in haste as well as illegally in allotting the land in dispute.

7. In order to complete factual background, it may also be pointed out that during the pendency of these petitions, the Lahore Development Authority issue a notification dated 5‑12‑1977 (published in the Punjab Gazette of 6‑12‑1977) under section 13 of the Land Acquisition (Housing) Act, 1973, acquiring the land in dispute. This application was then challenged by the Society by filing a constitution petition (W.P. 1633 of 1979), but the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 1‑4‑1979. The Intra‑Court Appeal filed against the said order was dismissed on 6‑5‑1979. The petitioner society then filed Civil Petition No.633 of 1977 in the Supreme Court and the leave was granted vide order dated 27‑4‑1985. In this leave granting order, the learned Judges of the Supreme Court observed that the constitution petitions pending before the High Court be disposed by according priority of hearing, if possible, within six months. This order of the Supreme Court was brought to the notice of this Court while arguing these petitions which were otherwise fixed in routine.

8. Mr. Tanvir Ahmad Advocate appeared for Rizwan Co‑operative Society Ltd., Mr.S.M.Zafar, Syed Zahid Hussain, Syed Munir Hussain and Sardar Shaukat Ali Advocates represented the view point of the allottees. ShAlmas Ali who was counsel for Professor Muhammad Usman deceased also represented his legal representatives. MrA.R.Shaukat and Dr. Danishwar Advocates addressed arguments on behalf of the Punjab University Academic Staff Association while Ch.Muhammad Farooq, Advocate, represented the Punjab University. The learned Advocates for the parties were heard at length.

9. Learned counsel for the Punjab University Academic Staff Association argued that the allotments obtained by the allottees were void and illegal, hence ineffective in law as the same were made and obtained unauthorisedly and Illegally It was contended that the request of the society for sale of the land as well as matter of sale to the University was pending when some of the Settlement Officers hastily and in a clandestine and illegal manner passed the impugned orders of allotment. It was added that these allotments fail to confer .any right in the land on the allottees, the informers or the persons who are claiming the said land as purchasers from the so‑called allottees. It was also submitted in opposition to the petitions filed by Rizwan Cooperative Society Limited that these petitions are liable to be dismissed on the short ground that the petitioner society was left with no locus standi to maintain these petitions in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court. This very argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the allottees. They added that the sale made by the Custodian to the Society was declared to be without lawful authority and the Custodian was further directed to cancel the sale and to refund the entire sale price to the petitioner Society. It was contended that though the Notification of acquisition issued on 24‑1‑1957 did not cover the land now in dispute yet the said plea, having not been raised upto the Supreme Court in the earlier round of litigation, was not allowed to be raised in review petition and that with the dismissal of the review petition, the Petitioner Society was left with no locus standi to maintain the petition. So the society stands debarred by law to raise the same plea in these petitions as the Principle of res judicata fully applies. It was added that had these pleas been taken at the proper time the sale could be split up to the extent of the land not included in the Notification and this land having been included in the sale‑deed, could be left intact with the petitioner Society but as no such distinction or splitting up was made or allowed, the entire sale was declared to be without lawful authority and the Custodian was directed to cancel the sale‑deed as a whole and to refund the entire sale price. It was added that the present petitions filed during the pendency of the review petition became infructuous on the dismissal of the review petition in the year 1978. On merits the plea was that the allotments made to the allottees or to the informers, the predecessors‑in‑interest of the respondents are valid in law.

10. The constitution petition filed by the University of Punjab and the Academic Staff Association of the University of Punjab was opposed on the ground that the same suffers from laches as the order of allotment dated 25‑3‑1974 was challenged in the year 1976 and that even on merits the University has no case as:‑ (i) the Chief Settlement Commissioner had no power in law to sanction the sale of the agricultural land as has been held in Messrs Pakasia Paint Mills Ltd. v. Dr.Abdul Rauf and 9 others 1970 S C M R 739. (ii) neither the Government nor the Chief Settlement Commissioner is empowered to sell the land which stands already allotted to the claimants/informers in lieu of the pending units.

11. Before proceeding further it will be pertinent to take note of the position . taken by the parties on the question whether the disputed land formed part of the scheme framed by the Trust and approved by the Government. The case of the petitioner society is that the disputed land did not form part of the scheme and the same was unnecessarily made subject‑matter of the writ petition earlier instituted by the Lahore. Improvement Trust. The Settlement Department in its comments has not taken any definite position with regard to the inclusion or non -inclusion of the disputed land in the notification issued by the Lahore Improvement Trust. Learned counsel for the allottees, however, accepted the position that the notification issued by the Lahore Improvement Trust did not include the land in dispute, Learned counsel for the Punjab University and the Academic Staff Association of the Punjab University during the arguments at one stage did not controvert the lea of the petitioner society but later on took the stand that the disputed land formed part of the land acquired for the University Campus and in support of its version placed on record Aks Shajra Parcha of Mauza Bhekewal showing the land respecting which the society had raised the dispute. This Aks Shajra was placed on record while closing the arguments in rebuttal. The opposite parties obviously have no notice of this document which otherwise does not conclusively establish that the land in dispute formed part of the notified scheme. The stand taken by Ch.Muhammad Farooq learned counsel for the Punjab University was that though the land in dispute formed part of the notified scheme yet the possession of the same was not delivered to the University earlier and that the price for the said land was also not perhaps paid then. He added that in view of the above the request of sale was made which was granted by sanctioning the sale and the possession was then delivered to the representative of the Association on 29‑6‑1974 after payment of 1/4th of the transfer price.

11. At this stage salient factual features of the case may be recapitulated. The Supreme Court vide judgment dated 20‑10‑1971 declared the sale sanctioned by the Custodian in favour of the society illegal and without lawful authority and directed the Custodian to cancel the sale‑deed. On 21‑3‑1972 the petitioner society requested the Chief Settlement Commissioner to sell 406 kanals 1 marla, the disputed land in its favour as the same did not form part of the scheme notified by the Lahore Improvement Trust. The request was entertained and the Settlement Department entered into correspondence with the University Authorities inviting their views on the request of the petitioner society as the University had also requested the Department for the sale of the same land to it for the purposes of the Academic Staff Association. One Ghulam Muhammad Sukhera son of Sultan, it appears, also approached the Additional Settlement Commissioner for allotment of the land in satisfaction of their pending units but the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner on 28‑9‑1972 passed the following order:‑ "For the present due to certain operations the allotment of the units is stopped. In due course the allotment will be made with the sanction of the Custodian/Collector". This order was challenged by filing appeals by Abdur Rehman and Badarul Hassan and the Settlement Commissioner vide ‑order dated 19‑12‑1972 accepted the appeal and directed that the allotment be made to Eadarul Hassan. The appeal of Abdur Rehman Qureshi etc. was allowed vide order dated 29‑12‑1972. 1 he Mukhbari application was filed on 14‑11‑1973 by Ahmed Khan etc. against the allotment obtained by Badarul Hassan. This Mukhbari application was accepted on 25‑3‑1974. The allotment to Ali Ahmad was made pursuant to the order dated 1‑2‑1973 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner passed in appeal against the order refusing to make the allotment. Likewise Professor Muhammad Usman was also allotted the land on 12‑3‑1973 pursuant to the order dated 23‑1‑1973 passed in appeal whereby he had challenged the aforesaid order dated 28‑9‑1972 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. Under these orders land measuring 365 kanals 3 marlas was allotted as afore‑noted in the period commencing from 19‑12‑1972 to 10‑4‑1974. Shujat Ali and Mirza Badaruddin respectively obtained allotment orders dated 22‑9‑1971 and 16‑2‑1972 whereunder the land measuring 322 kanals 4 marlas out of 406 kanals 1 marla of the disputed land was allotted to them. It will, therefore be seen that this is a case of double allotment as most of the land in dispute was allotted twice.

12. Besides the history of allotments made, the other noticeable features are that the Settlement Authorities in compliance with the decision of the Supreme Court set aside the mutation earlier recorded in favour of the petitioner society and fresh mutation No.2644 in favour of the Central Government indicating reversion of the land to the compensation pool was entered in the settlement record on 12‑3‑1973.

13. The petitioner society moved this petition (W.P.89‑R of 1973) in this Court and on 5‑2‑1973 this Court directed that the petitioner society if in possession shall not be disturbed meanwhile. Again a status quo order was also passed on 12‑2‑1973 in Writ Petition No.124‑R of 1973. It will, therefore, be noticed that the order allotting the land to Professor Muhammad Usman as well as the order dated 25‑3‑1974 directing allotment of the land to the informers were passed during the subsistence of the status quo order passed by this Court. It is also apparent that all these allotments were made during the pendency of the applications moved by the petitioner society as well as by the University. of Punjab or sale of the land to them. These allotments were also made prior to the recording of the entry in the record regarding the reversion of the land to the compensation pool. The allotment dated 12‑3‑1973 in the name of Professor Muhammad Usman was made in compliance with the order dated 23‑1‑1973 passed in appeal against the order dated 28‑9‑1972. This appeal was incompetent as on the day that appeal was filed, he could not be considered to be a person aggrieved of the order dated 28‑9‑1972, whereby the refusal was made to make allotment for the time being as the claim of Professor Muhammad Usman was then not pending satisfaction in Lahore District. He got his units transferred on 1‑1‑1973 that is during the pendency of the appeal. Obviously earlier to that he was not entitled to make grievance against the order dated 28‑9‑1972. The incompetent appeal as such could not be accepted. Moreover, no appeal could be filed by Professor Muhammad Usman or Ali Ahmad, Abdur Rehman Qureshi or Badarul Hassan against the order dated 28‑9‑1972 as under the said order the request of one Ghulam Muhammad Sukhera son of Subhar, to allot the land was refused. This Ghulam Muhammad Sukhera had brought his claim to Lahore District through transfer on 13‑9‑1972. None of the aforesaid persons thus were aggrieved of the order dated 28‑9‑1972 and as such they were not entitled to maintain any appeal and the Settlement Commissioner by accepting this incompetent appeal could not legally direct the allotment of the land to the aforesaid persons. It is also pertinent to note that the Settlement Commissioner accepted the appeals after obtaining report from the Additional Settlement Commissioner to the effect that allotment in the various estates of Lahore District have been made earlier to other claimants. The Additional Settlement Commissioner who had submitted the report was other than the one who had passed the order dated 28‑9‑1972 refusing to make allotments on account of certain operations due to which allotments were then stopped. It appears that the Additional Settlement Commissioner who took over the charge failed to report that the urban agricultural land in 25 estates of Lahore had already been declared `building site' vide Notification of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 25‑5‑1971 and steps were being taken for declaring all the urban land falling within the limits of the Municipal Committees, Cantonments and Town Committees as 'building site'. The notification declaring the urban lands within the Municipal Limits etc. as 'building site' and hence transferable under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act was ultimately issued on 16‑5‑1973. The facts and the features noted above make it abundantly clear that the land in dispute was sought to be grabbed in collusion with the then Settlement Commissioner through incompetent appeals and Mukhbari application.

14. The plea that the land reverted to the Compensation Pool on the pronouncement of the judgment of the Supreme Court on 20‑10‑1971 and as such the Settlement Authorities were right in allotting such land to the claimants against the pending units has no merit. The Supreme Court had declared the sale sanctioned by the Custodian illegal and without lawful authority but the matter did not end there. It further directed the Custodian to cancel the sale‑deed and also to refund the price. This was on account of the representation that the land had been acquired by the Trust for the University New Campus with the consent of the Central Government and after obtaining sanction of the Custodian. The conduct of the Settlement Department m this respect manifestly is that the land in dispute did not form part of the land acquired by the Trust under Notification of January, 1957. It is true that the petitioner society stands estopped under the principle of res judicata to claim any right whatsoever in the disputed land on the basis of the sale made by the Custodian but neither the principle of res judicata nor the estoppel applies to the others. The consequential action as such was required to be taken in order to effectuate the reversion of the land to the Compensation Pool. This action was completed by entering mutation No.2644 on 12‑3‑1973. It is, therefore, obvious that the allotments made prior to that are illegal, null and void.

15. The impugned allotments cannot be sustained for another reason as well. It will be noticed that under the instructions issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide circular memo No.1094‑60/577‑R(P) dated 10‑2‑1960 and memo. No.6974‑62/6325‑R(L) dated 26‑9‑1962 in the rationed area of Lahore, the allotment at best could be of 4 kanals, 6 kanals or one acre of the urban land to any claimant. Moreover most of the land having been allotted on 22‑9‑1971 and 16‑2‑1972 to Shujat Ali and Mirza Badaruddin the same could not have been allotted either on 19‑12‑1972 or 29‑12‑1972 or 21‑2‑1973 or 12‑3‑1973 to others. This factor alone is sufficient to declare the allotments obtained as illegal and without jurisdiction. The allotments obtained on the basis of Mukhbari application were again made during the subsistence of the stay order issued by this Court. For all these reasons these allotments cannot be held to be valid in law and conferring any right whatsoever on these allottees or purchasers from them.

16. The plea that the petitioner society had no locus standi whatsoever to maintain these petitions may now be dealt with. It is true that the petitioner society cannot claim any right over the land in dispute on the basis of the tale in view of the decision of the Supreme Court dated 20‑10:1971 whereby the petition of the Lahore Improvement Trust was accepted and the order dated 17‑4‑1978 whereby the review petition of the petitioner society was dismissed, was set aside. The petitioner society however sought another order from the Settlement Authorities for sale of the land in dispute. During the pendency of this request of the petitioner society allotments were made. This furnished necessary locus standi to the petitioner to maintain the writ petition. The petitioner society, however, has not challenged the order of the Government of Punjab sanctioning sale of the land in dispute to the University of Punjab for housing scheme of the Academic Staff Association. It may be noted here that order of status quo passed in Writ Petition No.89‑R of 1973 would not be effective as against the University of Punjab or the Provincial Government as they were not impleaded as respondents in any of the petitions fled by the petitioner society. The University as well as the Academic Staff Association got themselves impleaded in Writ Petition No.89‑R of 1973 by making an application (C.M. 5 of 1976) in 1976: Though the petitioner society had the necessary locus standi to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of the Court and though the allotments made are null and void yet the petitions filed by the Society cannot succeed. The right at best which the Society can claim is that the concerned authorities were bound to give due consideration to the request of sale but it cannot claim any vested right in the land in dispute or right to enforce sale of the land in dispute to it. The request made was duly considered but it did not find favour with the authorities. No vested right was thus violated for the enforcement of which the petitioner society could maintain a constitution petition. This being the position no reliance can possibly be granted to the petitioner society in the constitution petitions filed by it.

17. The petition (W.P.No.331‑R of 1976) filed by Fazalur Rehm an and Abdul Rashid is liable to be dismissed as statedly 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 agreements to sell in favour of these petitioners. 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.

18. Coming to the writ petition of the Punjab University one of the objections taken was that the petition suffers from laches as the order passed on 25‑3‑1974 was challenged in the year 1976. The impugned order admittedly was passed in proceedings to which the petitioners were not impleaded. The petitioners came to know of the impugned order when they were served in a stilt tiled on 14‑2 ‑1975 by the vendees from the allottees. Icy these circumstances the delay in approaching this Court stands satisfactorily complained and the petitioners cannot be accused of approaching the Court with inordinate delay.

19. The net result of the above discussion is that the orders allot ting the land An dispute to the respondents are hereby held to have been passed without lawful authority and hence of no legal effect. It is further declared that the petitioner society cannot claim any right whatsoever as against the land in dispute and that the sale of land made in favour of the petitioners by the Punjab Government on 29‑3‑1974 is valid in law. The writ petition filed by Punjab University and another succeeds and is hereby accepted while the petition filed by Rizwan Co‑operative Society Ltd. stands disposed of accordingly. Fazalur Rehman and Abdur Rashid petitioners in Writ Petition No.331‑R of 1976 are not entitled to any relief. For the reasons given above this petition is, therefore, dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. S.Q./R 78/L Petition dismissed.