MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that original owner of the property in dispute was one Khuda Dad. Respondents Nos.1 to 14 is his successors. Khuda Dad mortgaged this property to one Abdul Kareem which was succeeded by his legal heir Abdul Ghafoor Khan. In the meanwhile, the property in question was taken over by the Land Reforms Authorities under MLR 64 through various mutations. The petitioner purchased the said property from the Provincial Government as in the meanwhile it had vested in the said Government. The respondents on 6-3- 1983 filed a suit against the petitioners and the Provincial Government for declaration, claiming them selves to be owner of the property in dispute, challenging the acquisition of land by the Land Reforms Authorities. This suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 10-7-1988. Respondents' appeal was also dismissed on 3-4-1990. Therefore, the respondents filed Civil Revision No.1825 of 1990 before this Court, which was allowed vide order, dated 7-12-1996.
This order was assailed by the petitioners through C.P. No.1409 of' 1997 before the Honourable Supreme Court, which was also dismissed vide order, dated 2-5-2000. Petitioners' Civil Review Petition No.79 of 2002 was dismissed as withdrawn on 30-10-2002.
2.Now starts the second round of litigation. Respondents on 22-5-2003 filed a suit for possession by way of redemption against the Provincial Government. In the said suit the petitioners on 29-5-2003 filed an application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. For being impleaded as defendant on the ground that they are in possession of the property in dispute for the last many decades and they have raised residential houses and have also invested huge amounts for the development of the said land, therefore, some rights have been created in their favour, therefore, if not necessary, at least, they are proper party to be impleaded. This application was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order, dated 9-1-2004. Petitioner's revision also failed on 6-1-2005, hence this petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they are in possession for the last many decades. Huge investments have been made by them, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court reported as 1985 SCM R 1213 the petitioners being merely in possession are necessarily required to be impleaded as defendants.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned orders.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. With respect to the petitioners' rights this Court vide its order dated 7-12-1996 observed as follows:-- "The disposed of land in favour of other respondents by the Provincial Government/Land Commission on the assumption that it had become the owner of the same being superstructure based on the void orders of confiscation of ownership rights of the petitioners have to fall on the ground as they cannot stand independently having been raised on the void orders."
The above-quoted para has ultimately become the final judgment in case which clearly postulates that transfer of land by the Provincial Government to the petitioners was an illegal activity, therefore, admittedly the petitioners are left with no right whatsoever with the land in dispute.
Merely being in possession does not clothe the petitioners with any right, if they have invested anything it was at their own risk and cost.
7. For what has been stated above, I find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.