1983 PLP 1926 (CLC)

S. M. Zubair, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.. Date of hearing : 14th June, 1983. This writ petition has been filed by the successors of Nizam Din, a Revenue Patwari, who was lessee of the land which is subject‑matter of this dispute. This lease was given to him in recognition of his service as he had been killed while on active duty. The lease was valid up to Rabi, 1978. 2. In the meanwhile, however, the land in dispute was allotted by the Border Area Committee with the approval of G. H. Q. to late Lt.‑Col. Archibold Dudley, who served in the armed forces of the country, under the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 9 in the year 1970. The parties were thereafter litigating. The claim of the heirs of Nizam Din was that they were entitled to acquire proprietary rights in respect of State land whereas the same was being opposed by the heirs of late Lt.‑Col. Archibold Dudlay who were respondents 1 to 4 in the present writ petition on the plea that the allotment in their favour was valid and they had perfected title thereto on having paid the price which was witnessed by a mutation sanctioned in their favour. 3. This writ petition has been heard on various dates. During the hearing of this writ petition, however, on 6th June, 1983 there was an offer made by the petitioners that in order to shorten the litigation and to bring to an end the dispute between the parties, they were ready to pay the price at which the respondents 1 to 4 were trying to sell the property in dispute in favour of a third party. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have appeared today and have filed an application for disposal of the writ petition in terms of the compromise. One of the petitioners Abdul Rashid is present in person. On behalf of respondent No. 1 Brig. (Rtd.) Jamil Akhtar Aziz who is also her attorney is present. Sh. Abdul Manan Advocate holds the power of attorney on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. Brig. Jamil Akhtar Aziz (Rtd.) who is husband of respondent No. 1 as well as attorney of respondent No. 1 has stated that this compromise carries the consent of his wife and that respondents No. 2 to 4 have also agreed thereto. Abdul Rashid one of the petitioners also states that be and his brothers are willing parties to this compromise. I am thus satisfied about the genuineness of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 5. The application in which the terms of the compromise are contained has been marked as Exh. A and signed by me today. The compromise consists of three typed pages. I have considered the terms. It appears to be lawful. The compromise has the wholesome effect o bringing to an end the protracted litigation between the parties over a number of years. It advances public policy by shortening the litigation. I have, therefore, no hesitation in allowing it. However, I am observe that before allowing this compromise I sent for the learned Assistant Advocate‑General who was also appearing in this case and accordingly Mr. S. M. Zubair, learned As.A.‑G. has appeared. He states that respondents 8 to 9 would have no objection to the compromise which amounts to mutual adjustment and settlement between the two contesting parties, namely, the petitioners and respondents 1 to 4. Ch. Muhammad Rafique Khan, learned counsel for the Border Are Committee, respondent No. 5, has also made a similar statement and says that his clients also agree to the compromise. The statement of Mr. Muhammad Aslam Nagi, the' learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. S. Manan, Advocate counsel for respondents 1 to 4 is to the same effect that as per the instructions the compromise/ may be allowed. 6. It is accordingly ordered that the writ petition shall stand disposed of in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. A sum of Rs. 50,000 has been paid by Abdul Rashid, petitioner. No. 1 to Brig. (Rid.) Jamil Akhtar Aziz: husband and attorney of respondent No. 1. The balance amount of Rs. 2,12,500 would be paid by the petitioners to respondents on 14th December, 1983 in pursuance to this compromise and arrangement arrived at between the parties. The sum and substance of the compromise is that the order of the Border Area Committee ha been accepted to be valid by the petitioners subject to the arrangement incorporated in the compromise deed that the title will pass on to the petitioners on fulfilling the conditions as undertaken by them and on pay?ing the balance of consideration price. 7. The penal provision is provided by clause (e) of the application containing the terms of the compromise. However, in case the peti?tioners fail to pay the balance amount of Rs. 2,12,500 in Court on 14th December, 1983 the amount already paid namely Rs. 50,000 shall stand forfeited and the petitioners will hand over peaceful vacant possession of the land in dispute to respondents 1 to 4 within a fortnight and the writ petition shall also stand dismissed. In case, however, if the petitioners pay the balance amount which is agreed to by respondents I to 4, the petitioners shall become absolute owners of the disputed land measur?ing 234 kanals and 15 marlas without any encumbrances. In the event of respondents 1 to 4 failure to turn up in this Court on 14th December, 1983 the petitioners shall be entitled to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 2,12,500 and thereupon they shall be the absolute owners of the land in question under the decree of this Court.? 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in these term:. However, since the parties have settled their dispute through compromise course there shall be no order as to costs. 9. The file will be put in Court on 14th December, 1983 for the limited purpose already listed above. M. Y. H.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition disposed of.