' SAGHIR AHMAD, J.---This writ petition by Muhammad Rafiq/petitioner has been filed with the following prayer:-- ' "In the above circumstances it is humbly prayed that the order dated 1-6-2005 and subsequent proceedings based upon the same order may kindly be declared illegal, without lawful authority, and is of no legal effect and direction may kindly be issued to respondent No,1 to refrain from confirming the proceedings of warrant Qabza and declare the whole proceedings illegal without lawful authority as the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 have no right over the land in question and quash all the proceedings which is based upon order dated 1-6-2005 for which the law does not permit them.
' Further prayed that the legal proceedings may also kindly be initiated against the respondents Nos.2 to 6 and order or proceedings on the basis of order dated 1-6-2000 of respondent No,1 is also declared illegal against the law and ineffective upon the rights of the petitioner."
2. The brief facts of the case per comments of the petition are that petitioner's suit for pre-emption with respect to the sale of land measuring 40 Kanals, 16 Marlas through Mutation No,74, dated 11-4- 1994 in favour of respondents Nos.4 and 5/vendees was decreed by the Civil Court on 14-3-2000 and pursuant to that decree, he deposited the decretal amount with the trial Court, as a consequence thereof, the petitioner became owner of the aforesaid land. During the pendency of the suit, respondents Nos.4 and 5 made an application before respondent No,1 for warrant Kabza with respect to the land in question. The petitioner also joined and contested the proceedings and ultimately, warrant Kabza was refused by respondent No,l. Meantime respondents Nos. 4 and 5 went for division of the Khata in question, which was contested and a civil suit was pending wherein an injunctive order was issued in favour of the petitioner. The respondents challenged the above-noted judgment and decreed and 14-3-2000 through RFA No,22/2000 and during the pendency of that appeal, respondents alienated some of the land and this fact was concealed by them, so the petitioner filed C.M. 1835/2001 BWP for taking judicial notice against them. The respondents by concealment of facts and in connivance with respondents Nos. 1 to 3 got issued warrant Kabza on 1-6-2005.
3. Pre-admission notice was issued to the respondents and pursuant to order dated 23-11-2005, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 have filed their written statement, wherein they have stated that the appeal filed by them against the judgment and decree, dated 14-3-2000 passed in favour of the petitioner was accepted by the learned first Appellate Court vide judgment and decree, dated 6- 5-2005, which was challenged by the petitioner before this 'Court through R.S.A. No,14 of 2005, wherein pre-admission notice has been issued to them. It is further stated that the petitioner has concealed the real facts and in fact, respondents Nos.4, 5 and one Mst. Waziran purchased agricultural land measuring 40 Kanals, 16 Marlas situated in Mauza Ghulamu Mahar Tehsil Bahawalpur, which was a joint Khata, so they filed an application before the Revenue Officer, who proposed WANDA on 15-8-1995, which was sanctioned on 24-10-1995. The writ petitioner and other land owners filed an appeal against order dated 15-8-1995 and 24-40-1995, which was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Bahawalpur, on 27-12-1996, which was further challenged by them through another appeal, which, too met the same fate vide order dated 25-11-1997 passed by the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur whereupon the Revenue Officer, Bahawalpur, got sanctioned mutation of Partition No,239 on 10-12-1997. Meanwhile, the petitioner and others went in revision before the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, who dismissed the same on 9-6-2000. Thereafter respondents Nos.4 and 5 filed an application under section 146 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, before the Revenue Officer, Bahawalpur, who passed an order on 4-6-1998 for issuance of warrant for possession but the same was not complied with and the period of warrant for possession was extended vide order dated 1-11-2001. The writ petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid orders dated 4-6-1998 and 1-11-2001, which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn vide order' dated 6-3-2002 passed by the Deputy District Revenue Officer, Bahawalpur.
It is alleged that the writ petitioner has misstated in the writ petition that warrant Kabza had been declined. It is further stated that the Revenue Officer, Bahawalpur issued Direction No,580, dated 1- 6-2005 for compliance of warrant for possession and the same was complied with on 7-6-2005. It is further stated that after having remained unsuccessful upto the level of the Board of Revenue, the writ petitioner, filed a declaratory suit along with an application for grant of temporary injunction. The learned Senior Civil Judge vide his order dated 24-10-2001 dismissed the said application. The appeal filed against the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, on 20-11-2001, and subsequently, the suit was also dismissed for want of prosecution on 18-12-2003. The application of the writ petitioner for restoration of the suit is still pending. According to the respondents, neither the suit has been restored nor any injunctive order has been issued therein. It is further stated that Mutations Nos.358, dated 1-11-1999 and 387, dated 4-2-2000 got sanctioned by the petitioner and his son in connivance with the revenue staff were challenged by the respondents through a civil suit which has been decreed in their favour on 6-4- 2002 and the respondents have presented an application to the District Officer (Revenue).
Bahawalpur for compliance of the decree, which is still pending.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
5. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 purchased the land in question from a joint Khata and had applied for partition which application has been accepted by the revenue officer and the petitioner and other land owners challenged the same before the revenue authorities but failed upto the level of the Board of Revenue. Thereafter, the writ petitioner knocked the door of Civil Court by filing declaratory suit, which has also been dismissed. Therefore, the respondents, who had, validly purchased the land in question, were entitled to its possession and as such, warrant of possession dated 1-6-2005 (impugned herein) in their favour has been rightly issued by the revenue officer, especially when the pre-emption suit filed with regard to said sale transaction, on the basis of which warrant of possession was issued, has been dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court and second appeal bearing R.S.A. No,14/05 against the same has also been dismissed vide order of even date of this Court recorded therein. That being so, this petition having no force is hereby dismissed.