' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J . --- This judgment shall decide Cr.O No,371- W/2000 and W.P.No,5582/2000 as in the writ petition also a grievance has been made of disobedience of earlier judgments and orders of this Court.
2. On 2-1-1995 Muhammad Nazir petitioner W.P.4/95 in this Court. According to' the contents of this writ petition, his father Muhammad Sharif was leased out a plot of land 'mentioned in the said writ petition for setting up of a Petrol Pump. Thereafter, additional land was leased out to the petitioner himself for, extension of the Petrol Pump. His lather installed the Petrol Pump and all the necessary paraphernalia connected therewith. The petitioner, is running the Petrol Pump since 1971. In October, 1994, some staff of the respondents (LDA and TEPA) came to the spot and started demolishing the structures and the Pump. He protested that he had not been issued any notice as to under what lawful authority the property was being demolished. He was directed to approach the TEPA. After the said demolition, nothing has been done on the site: He approached the said respondents to give him anlternate site. The prayer wa,s made as follows:- "It is , therefore, respectfully prayed that the respondents be restrained from interfering with the use of ,the property-in-question by the petitioner as Petrol Pump and the petitioner be allowed to reconstruct his Petrol Pump and also the respondents be directed to pay damages and compensation to the petitioner for illegally demolishing this petrol Pump. Any other relief may also he granted."
' This ease came up, for the first time, before the Court on 3-1-1994 when a notice was issued-to the respondent No,2 i.e, TEPA. Thereafter, the record shows that the case was adjourned from time to time when on 12-3-1995 it was reported that some compromise is being effected 'outside the Court and the petitioner was directed to meet the Chief Engineer, TEPA. On 29-3-1995 a direction was issued to the Legal Advisor of LDA to ask the said Chief Engineer to Settle the matter. On 17-4-1995 the following proceedings were recorded:- The parties have settled their dispute outside the Court and have executed an agreement which s placed on record. In view of the above, petition is disposed of as having borne fruit."
3. Cr.O.No,781-W/95 was filed by the petitioner complaining that the order passed by the Court is not being complied with. This Cr.O. Was withdrawn vide order dated 6-11-1995. Thereafter, Cr.O.No,260- W/96 was tiled. This Cr.O. Was disposed of on 30-9-1999 as follows:--- ' In the parawise comments submitted by the respondents it has been stated that a list of different sites for petrol pump was handed over to the petitioner who did not, however, respond positively.
' Learned counsel for respondent No,1 says that alternative site shall be made available to the petitioner within two weeks from today.
' In view of this 'statement, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondents shall allot a site to the petitioner within two weeks as undertaken."
' Thereafter Cr. 0 .No,360-W/2000 was filed which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 24-4- 2000. Finally, present Cr.O.No,371-W/2000 has been filed which was ordered to be heard along with W.P.No,5582/2000. The contents of both these petitions are almost similar. It has been complained despite an order passed by this Court in W.P.No,4/95 and then in Cr.O.No,260-W/96 a plot has not been allotted to the petitioner for setting up a Petrol Pump. The report and parawise comments have been filed in W.P.No,5582/2000. It has been stated that no land was ever leased out,to the petitioner or to his father and, in fact, the land was leased out by the Highway Department to Messrs Pakistan Burmah Shell (PBS). The main Ravi Road was to be widened and the project was commenced in February1993 and completed in November, 1993 and for this purpose a 6 feet wide strip leased out by the Highway Department to PBS 'was utilized. It has been categorically stated that no structure or machinery or dispensing units of the Pump were affected. Later, the Project was not fully implemented because of financial constraints and no other land was utilized. It has further been categorically stated that the said PBS and the petitioner are still running the Petrol Pump on the same site and this can be verified by local inspection. The precise plea is that since no land belonging to the petitioner was utilized in the said Project there is no question of allotting any alternate land. As to the agreement which was placed on the file of W.P.No,4/95 it was pointed out that in case some land of the petitioner was utilized then the alternate site will be provided.
Regarding the Order passed in the said Cr.O. As to provision of site within two weeks. The reply is that since no 'land of the petitioner or comprising any lease in his favour was utilized, the alternate site cannot be provided as there is a bar in the law or policy governing the matter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a direction was issued by this Court in W.P.No,4/95 that alternate land be provided which was not complied with and then in the said Cr.O.No,260-W/96 direction was issued for providing the alternate site within two weeks and the respondents are liable to be proceeded against in contempt, and the writ petition is liable to be accepted and the said relief be provided to his client. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, reiterates the contents of the reply already noted by me above.
5. I have gone through the files of the above cases as also of W.P.No,4/95 and all the Criminal Originals referred to above with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. I have already reproduced above the order dated 17-4-1995 above in W.P. No,4/95. It will be seen that the order simply records that the parties have settled the matter outside the Court and have executed an agreement which is placed on record and the writ petition is disposed. Of. To my mind, the contents of the said order do not at all give the impression that a compromise was recorded as envisaged by Order XXIII Rule 3, C.P.C. Be that as it may, assuming that a compromise was validly recorded and the said order is to be read as a compromise order or adjustment. I have examined the said agreement. It is dated 10-4-1995 and is signed by Ch. Muhammad Nazir petitioner and Chief Engineer (TEPA). I deem it appropriate to reproduce hereunder what may be termed as the preamble of the said agreement:-- "The learned Mr. Justice Aqil Mirza of Lahore High Court had called the parties to appear on 9-4- 1995 with regard to giving alternate sites to Chaudhary Muhammad Nazir whose site has been taken over by LDA during construction of Ravi Road. LDA is also going to take over the remaining portion, which falls within the service road in the near future. Worthy Judge adjourned the case till 17-4-1995 and asked LDA for negotiations with the petitioner for making him agree on one particular site as an alternate."
' Thereafter, there is mention of five sites proposed by the petitioner. Ultimate suggestion is that the petitioner may be given site on the Min. Mir Drain facing the side road instead of Main Boulevard Guiberg.
7. Upon a plain reading of the said agreement, I have no manner of doubt in my mind that the agreement was concluded in contemplation of the fact that some site of Ch. Muhammad Nazir petitioner is going to be taken over in some Project in the near future and in lieu of the said site, the said alternate site was proposed to be given.
8. I have called upon the learned counsel to demonstrate that after the said agreement, some site of his client was taken over or utilized in any Project. The learned counsel has opted to remain silent. I have also examined the lease agreement being relied upon by the petitioner and appended as Annexure-A to W.P.No,4/95 and I find that some land was given by the Governor of Punjab to Messrs Pakistan Burmah Shell Limited. Neither the petitioner nor his father figures anywhere in this agreement.
9. I will leave matters here as they are. To my mind, no violation of any direction or order passed by this Court upon a reading of the entire record of these cases stands made out. So far as the said agreement is concerned, it will not be possible to enforce the same in view of the conflicting factual pleas of the parties in proceedings in contempt or the said writ petition. The petitioner may, however, file a properly constituted suit for the performance of the said agreement which suit if filed shall be dealt with and decided in accordance with law after giving a chance to both the parties to lead evidence and hearing them. With these observations, the Cr.O. As well as the writ petition are disposed of. No order as to costs.