MUHAMMAD SADIQ LEGHARI, J.--- The facts forming the background of this petition put briefly, are that Vani Bai the mother of Preetamdas was owning agricultural land in District Sanghar specifically mentioned in paragraph No,1 of this petition. As some clouds were brought upon her status as non-evacuee she got the order from the Assistant Custodian of Evacuee Properties on 5- 4-1958 that she and her property were non-evacuee. Before that order some of her lands were allotted against the claims under the settlement and rehabilitation laws. Despite the declaration about her status she could not get back her lands and she filed Constitutional Petition No,623 of 1962 before this Court and the D.B. of this Court dispose of that petition by order, dated 24-2-1965, which is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "After going through the record we are satisfied that the petitioners are non-evacuees. In this connection reference may be made particularly to the order of the Central Government dated 22nd May, 1950 under section 3 of Ordinance XV of 1949, whereby Parumal the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners, was held to be non-evacuee and his property was declared as non- evacuee. Thereafter, the petitioners were also held to be non-evacuee by the Assistant Custodian by his order dated 5th April, 1958. Mr. S.M. Raza, the learned Advocate for respondent in these circumstances had to concede that, respondent No,1 be directed to dispose of the application of the petitioners for restoration of the property in accordance with the law. He, however, submits that the property in dispute was allowed to his clients Ashiq Ali and others against their verified claims under the Land Settlement Act. We would, direct that the Settlement Authorities may consider the claims of Ashiq Ali and others and settle them on some other available agricultural lands in lieu of their verified claims."
2. After that decision of this Court Moulana Abdul Quddus Behari filed one application on 13-8-1965 claiming the status of Vani Bai and one Hiranand son of Heemraj and their lands to be evacuee.
The Custodian Evacuee Properties entertained that application and ordered the maintenance of status quo in respect of the lands. The said application was finally decided by Custodian Evacuee Properties Mr. Aziz Ullah Memon on 29-5-1974 declaring it mischievous one. After dismissal of the application by the Custodian his order, dated 29-5-1974 was challenged before this Court through C.P. No,872 of 1974. Another petition being C.P. No,49 of 1974 was also filed before this Court against the order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner Sanghar passed on 29-12-1973 whereby non- evacuee status of the land of Vani Bai was recognized in the light of D.B.'s judgment in C.P. No,326 of 1965. Both the C.Ps. were heard and decided by Single Bench of Mr. Justice Salahuddin Mirza as then he was vide order, dated 21-12-1989. By that order he set aside the order of the Custodian and Deputy Settlement Commissioner with further declaration that miscellaneous application filed by Moulana Abdul Quddus Bihari is deemed to be pending and shall be disposed of after notice to the parties in accordance with law.
3. After that Vani Bai expired and her land was mutated in the name of her son Preetamdas, the respondent No,3. Out of that land he sold area of 106 acres in favour of petitioners through registered sale-deed dated 31-8-1995. As the hurdles were being put in the way of implementation of the sale on the pretext that status quo order passed by the Custodian upon the application, of Moulana Abdul Quddus Bihari was operating after decision of Justice alahuddin Mirza in C.Ps.
Nos,872 of 1974 and 49 of 1974, the purchasers of the land from Preetamdas filed present petition praying as under:---
(a) Declare that Application No,F-4(3)/1965 has abated and the order of status quo of the Custodian, dated 28-8-1965, ceased to exist.
(b) That the sale made by the respondent No,3 in favour of petitioners is not rendered invalid on account of any contravention of the alleged order of status quo as the petitioners are bona fide purchasers for valuable consideration without any notice.
(c) Prohibit and restrain the respondent No,1 from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the lands purchased by the petitioners and mutated in their favour in the records of rights vide Entry No,216, dated 14-9-1995.
4. After issuance of notice the arguments have been heard for deciding this C.P. at Katcha Peshi stage.
5. Petitioners' counsel Mr. Jagdesh R. Mulani, contends that in fact the question relating to the status of Vani Bai and her land as non-evacuee stood finally decided by the D.B. of this Court on 24-2-1965 and the same question could not be reopened by miscellaneous application. Nor the single Judge of this Court could reopen the chapter. According to him although he application was declared to be pending and directions were issued for taking it up and deciding but that order cannot reopen the chapter closed by the order of D.B. in C.P. No,623 of 1962.
6. Mr. Naraindas C. Mottani, Advocate representing respondent No,3 is in total agreement with Mr. Jagdesh R. Mulani on the legal point. He states that so far the lands of Vani Bai are concerned their status had been finally decided and is not open to challenge or consideration. He further contends that on demise of Vani Bai her lands devolved upon her son and he could dispose them of competently.
7. Mr. Muhammad Saleem Samoo, Advocate appearing for the respondent No,1 has no reply to the legal position in respect of the finality of the decision recorded by the D.B. of this Court on 24-2- 1965 in C.P. No,623 of 1962. He only contends that in fact the application made by Moulana Abdul Quddus Bihari was also against Hiranand therefore, the order passed by the Honourable Single Bench of this Court has to be given effect to the extent of the persons and properties other than Vani Bai and her lands.
8. As regards Vani Bai and her lands, their status had been finally declared through judgment of this Court in C.P. No,623 of 1962, which was never challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court as such it is holding the field. Obviously the judgment of Honourable Single Judge of this Court in C.P. No,872 of 1974 does not and cannot affect that decision. The legal position is that the application made by Moulana Abdul Quddus Bihari can only be proceeded with to the extent of persons and properties other than Vani Bai and her lands. That application and status quo order, if any, have therefore, no effect against and in respect of Vani Bai and her lands including her successors-in-interest. The prayers made in the petition are accepted to that extent. The prayer for restraining the respondent No,1 from interfering with the possession of petitioners over that land is also granted. With this order the petition is accepted with no order as to costs.