' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- These petitions under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan are directed against judgment, dated 20-11-2001, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Writ Petitions Nos.2827 of 1992 and 2938 of 1992.
2. The petitioners (in Civil Petitions Nos.3919-L and 3920-L of 2001) (hereinafter called the vendors), sold their land measuring 208 Kanals and 16 Marlas in favor of respondents Nos.6 to 10 (hereinafter referred to as the vendees) vide sale Mutation No,274 attested by the Assistant Collector on 11-5- 1972. The respondent No,1 (late Abdul Haq) and late Shamusuddin (predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 5 in Civil Petition No,3920-L of 2001) being pre-emptors, filed two suits for possession of the land in dispute through pre-emption which was dismissed. However, the same were decreed by the Appellate Court, by judgment, dated 22-11-1983 in favor of late Abdul Haq and late Shamsuddin, pre-emptors, to the extent of 62 Kanals and 146 Kanals and 16 Marlas respectively. The vendees preferred R.S.A. No,217 of 1983 thereagainst which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, on 27-1-1985. A Mutation No,1187 dated 11-5-1985 was sanctioned in favor of the pre-emptors accordingly.
3. Thereafter, Haitam Ali (petitioner in Civil Petitions Nos.3921-L and 3922-L of 2001) (hereinafter also referred to as the informer) claiming to "be a servant of the vendors moved an application dated 6-10-1985 before the District Collector, Multan for review of Mutation No,274 on the ground that alienation of the land in dispute, by way of sale, by the vendors in favor of the vendees was hit by the provisions of paragraph 24 of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R.115 of 1972). The District Collector, by order dated 19-11-1985 allowed his application and granted permission to review the sale Mutation No,274. The pre-emptors filed separate appeals which were dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division vide order, dated 16-12-1981. Their revision petitions were also dismissed by the Member (Judicial), Board of Revenue, Punjab, vide order, dated 5-9-1992. Therefore, they tiled Writ Petitions Nos.2827 of 1992 and 2938 of 1992 which were allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, vide impugned judgment dated 20-11-2001. As a consequence, the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Authorities were set aside. Hence these petitions by the vendors and informer Haitam Ali.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the original sale of the land in dispute by the petitioners (in C.P. No,3919 and 3920-L of 2001) to the vendees was violative of the restrictions on alienation of holdings as contained in paragraph 24 of the Land Reforms Regulation (M.L.R.115 of 1972). Therefore, the sale of land in dispute was void. It was further contended that under paragraph 24 (ibid) any person owning more than an area of economic holding or the subsistence holding was prohibited to alienate any portion of his holding which would reduce its size below the limit of an economic holding or, as the case may, the subsistence holding. Therefore, the Revenue Authorities were quite justified in reviewing the sale Mutation No,274 in order to give effect to the provisions of Land Reforms Regulation (M L.R.115). The learned counsel argued that the Revenue Authorities were under an obligation to act in accordance with law and to ensure that the provisions of Land Reforms Regulation were duly observed.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the pre-emptors argued that neither the petitioner/vendors nor their servant Haitam Ali, petitioner had any locus standi to seek review of the sale mutation as they could not be said to be the aggrieved persons. None of their rights had been affected being privy to the sale transaction. They could not take a somersault to get the valid sale of land in dispute annulled either directly or through their servant Haitam Ali. It was further contended that there was nothing on record to show that the provisions of paragraph 24 of the Regulation were violated. The Revenue Authorities were not empowered to determine the question of violation of provisions of M.L.R.115 which was the exclusive domain of the Land Reforms Authorities.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the available record. We find that the petitioners/ vendors having alienated their land, by way of sale had no legal or moral justification to challenge its validity. Even otherwise, such a transaction A as between the vendors and the vendees would not be altogether void even if there was violation of some provisions of M.L.R.115. Reference may usefully be made to the cases of Mst. Zuhra Khatoon and 8 others v. The Member Land Commission, Rawalpindi 1985 SCM R 312 and Mst. Raj Bibi and 4 others v.
Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab and 2 others PLD 1975 Lah.
408. The right of pre-emption of the pre-emptors could not be defeated merely on the ground that the sale of land suffered from some defect. Reference may be made to the case of Abdul Karim v.
Fazal Muhammad Shah PLD 1967 SC 411. The petitioners/vendors cannot take any advantage of their own wrong being in pari delicto. Needless to observe that paragraph 24 of the Regulation places restrictions more on a vendor than a vendee. In the case of Abdul Ghafoor and others v.
Muhammad Ismail PLD 1982 SC 364. The preemption decree of the pre-emptors would not be treated to be a sale as the adjudication by Court and enforcement of a right take place under altogether a different law.
7. There is another aspect of the case. The petitioner/informer Haitam Ali, instead of moving the Land Reforms Authorities, conveniently approached the Revenue Authorities and that too without impleading the pre-emptors whose vested rights were to be adversely C affected. He, being servant of the vendors, could not be said to have acted bona fide. The District Collector had ordered the review of the sale Mutation No,274 without issuing any notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the pre-emptors in whose favor the suit for pre-emption had been decreed and Mutation No,1187 was also sanctioned on 11-5-1985. The review of Mutation No,274 seems to have been sought by the informer for the purpose of defeating the pre-emption decrees.
We are also satisfied that there was no contravention of provisions of paragraph 24 of the Regulation. No indulgence can be shown to the vendors or the informer, whose conduct is not appreciable. In our view, the impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any defect or other legal infirmity and the same is just and fair doing complete justice between the parties.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these petitions which are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.