NASIM SIKANDAR, J.--- This Intra-Court Appeal assails an order of learned Single Judge recorded on 4.3.2002 in Writ Petition No.19796/98. The operative part of the order reads as under- "I have gone through The several documents placed on record of this writ petition. I called upon learned counsel for the petitioners to demonstrate with reference to any material on record that his clients had paid the said Rs. 40,00,000/- he is unable to do so. On the other hand under consultation with one of his client present in Court states that the amount was deposited in the manner and by persons as stated by Mian Nisar Ahmad, Advocate. Also admits each one of the petitioner was allotted one shop. In this state of affairs when there is no material on record to support the said plea taken by the petitioners, hardly a case is made out for interference in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. This writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs".
2. Earlier as many as 40 petitioners by way of the aforesaid Constitutional petition approached this Court praying for the following relief:- "In the circumstances it is respectfully requested that this Hon'ble Court graciously issue mandamus that: --
(i) The existing working commission agents on whose behalf rupees forty lacs were deposited with the Market Committee for the construction of the market be issued allotment letters for 80% of the shop in the new market.
(ii) The remaining 20% be auctioned as agreed.
(iii) All pre-dated allotments and allotments in violation of the agreement and government's declared policy be declared a nullity in law.
(iv) Respondents be prohibited from interfering with the business of the existing market until completion of the new one and finalization of allotments in the new market.
3. It is the case of the appellant that in the year 1963 they alongwith 13 other persons were transferred land measuring 34 kanals, 12 marlas in Chak No. 220/R.B Faisalabad for the construction of fruit and vegetable market. After payment of price a transfer order was issued to them on 23.12.1978. In the meanwhile the respondents District Administrative Authorities as well as Anjuman Fruit & Vegetable Market, Faisalabad proposed to set up a new market in Chak No. 245/R.B Faisalabad.
4. According to the appellants despite the fact that shifting of the market from its existing place was not favourable to them yet they alongwith other 13 'working arhtees agreed to the shifting and deposited a sum of Rs. 4 million for the construction of the new market. At that time allegedly it was decided that each arhtee occupying shop in the existing market will be allocated three shops.
However, subsequently the respondents attempted to resile from that decision. It is also stated that the learned Judge in Chamber could not properly be assisted by the learned counsel for the appellants who had recently been entrusted with the brief while their original counsel had, in the meanwhile migrated to the U.S.A. Again it is asserted that President of the Anjuman handed over a list of 53 members to the respondents as per agreement who had deposited the aforesaid Rs. 4 million and were, therefore, entitled to allotment of 80% of the plots in the new market to the exclusion of any other person.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we will dismiss this Intra-Court Appeal for the following reasons:--
(i) Firstly, learned counsel for the respondents has rightly pointed out that since Rule 21 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1979 provides for an appeal to the District Revenue Officer against the orders passed by the Market Committee, in terms of proviso to section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, this appeal is not competent. The contention of the learned counsel that the appellants are seeking enforcement of a decision made by the Government and are not challenging any order of the Market Committee, even if be correct, the legal position will remain the same. The proviso to section 3 of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 prohibits and Infra Court Appeal where a Constitutional petition in which the impugned order was made arose out of any proceedings in which the law applicable provided for at least one appeal or revision or review to any Court, Tribunal or Authority against the original order. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent Mian Nisar Ahmad, in subpara (g) of the grounds in the Constitutional petition it has expressly been stated that the agreement qua allotment of shops in the new market was reached between the Market Committee and the Anjuman. Even otherwise these proceedings in any case arose under the aforesaid rules which provided for an appeal to the District Revenue Officer. Therefore, this Intra-Court Appeal is not maintainable.
(ii) Secondly, para-3 of the impugned order of the Hon'ble Single Judge as re-produced above remains unchallenged. Even before us. Learned counsel for the appellants despite having been given a chance has not been able to establish that the 40 appellants and their other 13 companions made the aforesaid payment of Rs. 4 million to the Market Committee. On the other hand the respondents have given a copy of the list mentioning as many as 96 persons who have contributed the aforesaid amount towards the construction of the new market.
6. Even on merits we are of the view that the appellants are taking undue advantage of the word "53 members" as written in the original allotment letter. That letter was issued in the name of the President of the Anjuman and did not make mention of the name of any of the members comprising the Anjuman. Therefore, in absence of a specific name, neither an existing member at the time of issuance of the allotment letter nor a subsequent member can possibly claim to be a transferee/allottee of the land. The land, without any doubt, was allotted to an Association of Persons and not to the individual persons comprising the Association. Therefore, no person or member existing at the relevant time had any right, title, or interest in the property conveyed through the allotment letter which continued to remain in the name of the Association. Also there is nothing in the agreement in question, which directly or indirectly operates to indicate even remotely that the parties to the agreement intended to transfer shops in the new market only to un-identified "53 members" mentioned in the allotment letter. The mentioning of figure "53" after identifying the President of the Association was a mere superfluity and could not operate to invest any right or title in any individual even an existing member of the Association.
7. Lastly, we are of the view that the matter in issue based upon a number of documents and the facts having seriously been disputed, the original Constitutional petition should not have been entertained at all. Mere fact that the respondents fall within the definition of a person as defined in Article 199 of the Constitution does not convert a regular civil suit into a matter to be considered and determined in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
8. This Intra-Court Appeal shall, therefore, be dismissed.