Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 633 of 1979, decided on 27th April, 1985.

(On appeal from judgment, dated 6‑5‑1979 of the Lahore High Court in I. C. A. No. 107 of 1979).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Acquisition of land‑‑Locus stands of owner to challenge‑‑Fact that respondent Authority seeking to acquire land in question going to prove that land was not acquired by its predecessor Authority‑‑Petitioner prima facie as owner of land having locus standi to defend its ownership‑rights by challenging validity of proceedings for acquisition by respondent Authority‑‑Question deserving to be considered further‑‑Leave to appeal granted.

Lahore Improvement Trust v. The Custodian, Evacuee Property, West Pakistan, Lahore and others P L D 1970 Lah. 257 and Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore through Its Chairman v. The Custodian, Evacuee Property, West Pakistan, Lahore and others P L D 1971 S C 811 ref.

Iftikhar Ahmad Dar, Advocate Supreme Court and Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Farooque Zaman, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 27th April, 1985.

‑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 petitioner‑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.

2. 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 19A5) claiming that "the sale by the Custodian to the petitioner of land which was covered by the said Development Scheme was void ab initio" on the ground that the ownership there had already vested in the Trust. The said writ petitioner 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. 257 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.

3. 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, Lahore 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‑deed, dated 1‑5‑1964 executed in favour of the petitioner‑society was ordered to be cancelled and the sale price ordered to be refunded to the petitioner society.

4. It appears that the Development Scheme of the 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. When the petitioner‑society subsequently became aware of this fact, it filed two review petitions for review of the judgments passed by this Court in the two appeals. However, both the review petitions were dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not produce the relevant notification to show that this area was not included in the Development Scheme and it was not found possible to conclude that the disputed Khasras were excluded there from in its absence. The other ground on which the review petition was dismissed was that the petitioner 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.

In the meanwhile, the L.I.T. had issued two notifications on 18‑7‑1977 and 6‑12‑1977 acquiring certain areas for the Mutstafa Abad Town Scheme, which included land measuring 406 Kanals, 1 Marla, now in dispute.

5. The petitioner‑society filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court (W.P. No. 1633/79) 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 also rejected on 6‑5‑1959. It was mainly held that since the sale‑deed in favour of the petitioner‑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. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order, dated 6‑5‑1979 passed by the High Court.

We have heard Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad Dar on behalf of the petitioner‑society and Mr. Farooq Zaman, learned counsel for the Lahore Development Authority.

6. There is no doubt that the area measuring 406 Kanals, 1 Marla continued to vest in the petitioner‑society because it was not covered by the Development Scheme framed by the L.I. T. and found to be valid by this Court. The said land, in fact, was considered to be available for disposal by the Settlement Department and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Plots) treating the same as evacuee land began disposing it of to different persons. These transfers have been challenged by the petitioner‑society by filing writ petitions in the Lahore High Court, namely, Writ Petition No. 89‑R of 1973, Writ Petition No. 124‑R of 1973, Writ Petition No. 623‑R of 1975 and Writ Petition No. 624‑R of 1975.

7. The above facts show that:

(a) the ownership of the petitioner as regards the said land measuring 406 Kanals, 1 Marla stands proved beyond question by virtue of Registered Sale‑Deed, dated 1‑5‑1964 which was not covered by the Development Scheme of the L.I.T. for which purpose the acquisition proceedings were initiated under notification, dated 24‑1‑1957. Hence the title of the petitioner on the said land continued intact; and

(b) the fact that L.D.A. as successor of L.I.T. seeks to acquire land in question is by itself conclusive proof that land had not been acquired by L.I. T. under notification, dated 24‑1‑1957.

In these circumstances we consider prima facie that the petitioner‑society as owner had the locus standi to defend his ownership rights by challenging the validity of the proceedings for acquisition by the Lahore Development Authority.

8. This question deserves to be considered further. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted. Security in the sum of Rs.2,500.

9. Mr. Farooq Zaman, learned counsel for the Lahore Development Authority submitted that in view of this long‑standing litigation the implementation of the Mustafa abad Town Society Scheme is being held up and that this case may be disposed of on an early date. The request is reasonable but we observe that unless the writ petitions filed by the petitioner‑society challenging the transfer of parts of the area in dispute by the Settlement Department to various persons, which are pending in the High Court, are not also decided the entire matter cannot be finally settled.

10. We would, therefore, request the High Court to give the priority to the disposal of the writ petitions pending before it (details whereof are given in paragraph 6 above) and be pleased, if possible, to dispose them of within six months.

11. The appeal shall be fixed for hearing in the month of November, 1985, on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any.

12. Copy of this order will be sent to the Registrar, High Court, Lahore, for suitable action with regard to the observations made in Para. 10 above.

M. Y. H. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.