Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No.538-D of 1984, decided on 15th February, 1987.

---S.115--Revisionaljurisdiction, exercise of--Estoppel--Land belonging to petitioners was included by respondent authority in Development Scheme and they were given another plot in lieu thereof which they accepted in full and final settlement of all their claims in pursuance of an agreement reached between parties--Petitioners thereafter bringing suit for declaration that in addition to said plot they were entitled to another plot in accordance with 2/3rd of area of their holding included in Development Scheme--Claim of petitioners not supported by documentary evidence on record and agreement reached between parties unequivocally demonstrated that allotment of plot constituted full and final settlement of petitioners' entire claims--Order of Courts below that said agreement operated as an estoppel against petitioners, held, was unexceptionable and would not justify interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Dr. A. Basit for Petitioners.

Khakan Babar for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 15th February, 1987.

The facts are that some land owned by the petitioners, was included in Gulberg-III Development Scheme, formulated by the Lahore Improvement Trust, now Lahore Development Authority and in lieu thereof, plot No.4-L, measuring 8 Kanals 100 Sq.ft. was allotted to them. But subsequently this allotment was cancelled and the plot disposed of through public auction. The petitioners filed a suit challenging the validity of the cancellation. During the course of its hearing, the parties compromised, which is evidenced by the documents Ex.D-1, D-2 and D-3. In pursuance of the agreement, the Respondent-Authority allotted plot No.11-L measuring 4 Kanals 1 Marla 100 Sq.ft. to the petitioners, as full and final settlement of their all claims.

2. The suit giving rise to the instant revision petition, was, brought by the petitioners for declaration that in addition to plot No.11-L, they were entitled to allotment of another plot, measuring approximately 4 Kanals, in accordance with 2/3rd of the area of their holding included in the Development Scheme. The learned Civil Judge on evaluation of the material on the record maintained that on the basis of the settlement between the parties plot No.11-L, was already allotted to the petitioners and their claim for allotment of other plot was untenable. The suit was thus dismissed on 7-11-1979. The learned

Additional District Judge concurred with the finding of the trial Court and held that the agreement aforesaid operated as an estoppel against the petitioners. By his judgment and decree, dated 17-5-1982, under challenge in this revision, he dismissed the petitioners' appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners' case is that the land owned by them measured 10 Kanals 16 Marlas and under the exemption policy, 2/3rd of this area which comes to 7 Kanals 4 Marlas should have been exempted and additional plot or plots equivalent to that area, to make good the deficiency suffered by them should have been allotted in their favour. That by means of compromise envisaged by documents Ex. D-1, D-2 and D-3 merely the dispute forming the subject-matter of the earlier suit was settled and their entitlement for allotment of land equivalent to 7 Kanals 4 Marlas, was not touched upon much less to be waived off. In the submission of the learned counsel. these documents particularly Ex.D-2, have not been correctly construed by the learned Courts below.

4. In order to weigh these submissions, I have gone through the relevant record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The documentary evidence amply reflects that in response to the petitioners' application, dated 15-9-1975 the Authority exempted plot No.11-L in lieu of plot No.4-L, earlier allotted to the petitioners, with the express condition:-

(1) You should give in writing that you have no objection to this arrangement in full and final settlement of all your claims against Lahore Development Authority and

(2) You will be paid compensation of the area falling short of your entitlement to acquisition of evacuee land in Gulberg. Scheme No.III, as no award of land of Muslim owners was announced".

The petitioners vide their reply Ex.D-3 accepted this offer unconditionally. It was thereafter that agreement Ex. D-1 was executed between the parties. The conditions incorporated therein, in so far as relevant to this case, are reproduced below:-

(1) The Second Party will surrender the whole of his/her/their aforesaid proprietary land in favour of the First Party.

(2) The First Party will allow exemption of Plot No.11-L, Gulberg Scheme No.III measuring 4K-1M-100 Sq. ft. in favour of the Second Party, in full and final settlement of their claim against the First Party.

(3) The Second Party undertakes to withdraw the case pending adjudication in the Court against the First Party.

(4) The Second Party will receive compensation from the First Party for the area falling short of their entitlement @ Rs.800 P. K. and shall pay to the First Party development charges for the abandoned area measuring 4K-1M-100 Sq.ft. @ Rs.2,000 P.K.

(5) In case the area of the plot is increased, the Second Party shall refund the amount of compensation equivalent to the area increased and will pay, therefore, development charges @ Rs.2,000 P. K.".

5. If these three documents are read together, the hollowness of the petitioners' claim is fully exposed. The argument of their learned counsel that in addition to allotment of plot No.11-L the Authority agreed to find out other plots having an area of 3 Kanals 4 Marlas or so, for adjustment of their full entitlement of 7 Kanals 4 Marlas, does not at all find any support from the agreement between the parties. The document Ex.D-1 is to be read alongwith the Authority's letter Ex.D-2 addressed to the petitioners and the latter's reply B thereto Ex. D-3. These documents unequivocally demonstrate that the allotment of plot No.11-L, constituted the full and final settlement of the petitioners' entire claims regarding exemption of the land owned by them. The language of Ex.D-1 does not lend any support to the petitioners' argument. It is difficult to enlist any aid from the material on the file, for the interpretation sought to be put on this agreement by their learned counsel. I entirely agree with the view taken bye the two Courts below.

6. This revision has no merit and is dismissed with costs.

M.Y.H./I-23/L Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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