1990 PLP 378 (SCMR)

Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Khurshid Ahmad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Tanvir Ahmad Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 3 and

4. Date of hearing: 10th June, 1989. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 28th October. 1985 whereby I.CA. of respondents 3 and 4 was accepted. Briefly the facts are that two parcels of agricultural land in village Nathuki, Tehsil and District Lahore were allotted to the aforesaid respondents by Border Area Committee in 1964. On their depositing of the price the land in question was confirmed in their favour on 25th April, 1970. On 14th October, 1970 the Committee cancelled the allotment on the ground that they were fictitious and bogus and on 22nd October, 1970 all this land was allotted to the predecessor‑in‑interest of the present petitioners namely Brigadier Zafar Ali. On this the aforesaid respondents challenged the allotment by way of writ petition which was accepted by the High Court and the case was remanded to be decided afresh after hearing the said respondents. The Committee considered the matter again and arrived at the conclusion that the allotment made in favour of both the said respondents was illegal, that it was rightly cancelled and that the order of allotment made in favour of the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners was to be maintained. On this the said respondents filed another writ petition but the same was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, they filed I.C.A. which as stated above was accepted. Hence the present petition filed by successors‑in‑interest of Brigadier Zafar Ali. It was submitted by learned counsel that on remand of the case by the High Court the Committee heard respondents 3 and 4 and after examining the entire record again had arrived at the conclusion that the allotment made in their favour was illegal and deserved to be cancelled. Furthermore, it also held that the allotment made in favour of the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners was valid and should be maintained. This order of the Committee was upheld by the learned Single Judge. It was submitted that in the background of these decisions there was no justification in holding in ICA that the allotment made in favour of the respondents was correct and proper hearing learned counsel we grant leave in this case to consider as to whether the allotment made in favour of the aforesaid respondents is in accordance with law. Security to be depoisted in the sum of Rs.5,

000. The appeal to be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file additional documents if any on which reliance may be placed. A.A./K‑119/S Leave granted.