1990 PLP 1660 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑‑‑This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6‑5‑1979 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissing the appeal (I.C.A. No. 107 of 1979) of the appellant‑Society which was directed against the dismissal of the writ petition earlier filed by it (in Writ Petition No. 1633 of 1979).

2. The dispute relates to land measuring 406 kanals, 1 marla. It forms part of land measuring 2,508 kanals, 7 marlas, which was evacuee property and was sold to the appellant‑Society by the Custodian of Evacuee Property with. the sanction of the Central Government for a sum of Rs.6, 27, 087/50 by a registered sale‑deed dated 1‑5‑1964.

3. The Lahore Improvement Trust had earlier formulated a development scheme involving acquisition of land measuring 3,100 acres under a notification dated 24‑1‑1957. The Trust filed a writ petition (being W.P. No.1142 of 1965) claiming that the sale by the Custodian to the appellant of land which was covered by the said development scheme was void ab initio' on the ground that the ownership thereof had already vested in the Trust. The said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court vide its judgment dated 26‑5‑1969, reported as Lahore Improvement Trust v. The Custodian Evacuee Property, West Pakistan, Lahore and others P L D 1970 Lah. 25, wherein it was held that no valid acquisition of land by L.I.T. existed because the scheme had not been sanctioned by the Government nor the previous approval of Government for acquisition of the evacuee property was obtained.

4. Two separate appeals were filed against this judgment in this Court; one by the L.I.T. and the other by the Punjab University. These appeals were allowed by this Court vide judgment passed on 20‑10‑1971, reported as Lahore Improvement Trust, through its Chairman v. The Custodian, Evacuee Property, West Pakistan, Lahore and others P L D 1971 S C 811, wherein it was held that the scheme formulated by the L.I.T. was valid and the acquisition of the evacuee land was with the approval of the Government. The sale decd dated 1‑5‑1964, executed in favour of the appellant‑Society was ordered to be cancelled and the sale price ordered to be refunded to the appellant‑Society.

5. According to the appellant the development scheme of L.I.T. which was found to be valid by this Court did not include the land measuring 406 Kanals, 1 Marla (now in dispute) and this area was cancelled under the judgment of this Court on the erroneous assumption that it also formed part of the said scheme. Hence the appellant‑Society on becoming aware of this fact filed two review petitions for review of the judgments passed by this Court in the two appeals. However both the review petition were dismissed on the ground that the appellant‑Society did not produce the relevant notification to show that this area was not included in the development scheme and in its absence it was not found possible to conclude that the disputed Khasras were excluded therefrom. The other ground on which the review petition was dismissed was that the appellant had not raised the question that the disputed Khasra numbers were excluded from the notification either in the High Court or at the hearing of the appeals in the Supreme Court (the judgment is reported in 1978 S C M R at p.449.

6. In the meanwhile, the L.I.T. Mid issued two notifications on 18‑7‑1977 and 6‑12‑1977, acquiring certain area for the Mustafabad Town Scheme, which included land measuring 406 Kanals, 1 Marla, now in dispute. The appellant‑society filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court (W.P. No.1633 of 1979), challenging the said notifications. This writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 1‑4‑1979 and the I.C.A. filed against this order was also rejected on 6‑5‑1979. It was mainly held that since the sale decd in favour of the appellant‑Society was invalidated by this Court, the said Society had no locus standi to challenge the notifications dated 18‑7‑1977 and 6‑12‑1977. The appeal by leave of this Court is directed against the order dated 6‑5‑1979 passed by the High Court.

7. We have heard Mr.lftikhar Ahmad Dar on behalf of the appellant society. Mr.Khakan Babar, learned counsel for the Lahore Development Authority, Ch.Khalilur Rehman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court on behalf of the Punjab University Academic Staff Society and Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate, Supreme Court, on behalf of the University of the Punjab, but have ultimately come to the conclusion that this appeal cannot succeed.

8. We observe that the question being agitated before us was squarely raised in the review petitions (C.R.P. Nos.34‑35/1971) which were decided on 7th April, 1978 and while dealing with this aspect it was observed that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s Ri7.wan Cooperative Society was not able to produce any notification to show that the land in dispute measuring 406 Kanals and 1 Marla did not form part of the scheme prepared by the L.I.T. and, therefore, it was not acquired by it for the proposed Punjab University Campus, and on that account should have been excluded. It was further observed that the learned counsel had merely relied on a copy of the award and the statement showing description of the Khasra numbers with the total area acquired by the L.I.T. but that in the absence of the notification in question it was not possible to conclude that these Khasra numbers were excluded from the above document.

9. Mr.Iftikhar Ahmad Dar, Advocate, attempted to reagitate the same question again before. But as this question has already been considered by this Court in connection with the review petitions filed by the appellant‑Society it is not possible to allow him to reagitate it, all over again. In these circumstances we consider that the High Court rightly dismissed the writ petition of the appellant Society and the I.C.A. Bench was also justified in not interfering with the order of the learned Single Judge in the Intra Court Appeal filed by the appellant‑Society.

10. The result is that this must fail and is accordingly dismissed hereby. However the parties left to bear their own posts. A.A./R‑156/S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.