SAAR SAOOD JAN, J. Through this application the applicant seeks review of the order made on 18- 12-1975 by Muhammad Iqbal, C. J.
2. The facts in this case are as follows : Ghulam Farid, respondent No. 1 in this application, was allotted some land under the Grow More Food Scheme. On 19-11-1965 the Collector cancelled the allotment. Ghulam Farid preferred 'an appeal with the Commissioner which was dismissed .On 21- 9-1966. He went in revision before the Board of Revenue but his. Revision petition also met the same fate on 1rs-5-1967. He then filed a review petition before the Board of Revenue but this too was rejected on 17-10-1967. After failing to get relief from the higher revenue authorities he instituted a writ petition in this Court which was admitted to regular hearing on 5-2-1968. This writ petition came up for regular hearing before Muhammad Iqbal, C. J. On 18-12-1976. On the statement made by the Advocate-General that Government bad no objection to the acceptance of the writ petition, his Lordship allowed the same and inter alia set aside the orders of the revenue authorities.
3. In the meanwhile, after cancelling the allotment made in favour of, Ghulam Farid the Collector had allotted the same land in equal shares to Mst. Jan and Muhammad Ashraf, who were evictees from Islamabad, and put them in possession therefore. Subsequently, on 20/23-11-1970 after taking possession from the Colloctor, the new allottoes sold the land to the applicant in this review petition. On 27-5-1974 the applicent acquired, proprietary rights therein.
4. In his writ petition Ghulam Farid had not impleaded the, applicant as a party. As a result the writ petition was allowed by the learned Chief Justice without giving the applicant any opportunity for presenting his case even though be was the owner of the land in dispute. It is also to be noticed that on the day when the learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the Government made the statement that the Government bad no objection to the acceptance of the writ petition, the Provincial Government bad no interest 'of whatsoever nature 1eft in the land for prior to that date the Government had already transferred all its rights therein to the applicant. On the other band the applicant had a substantial interest in the result of the writ petition for as a consequence of the acceptance of the same he stood to lose his proprietary rights in the land. We are therefore of the opinion that the writ petition could not be disposed of without hearing the applicant who C had a real stake therein. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the learned Chief Justice, direct that the applicant be impleaded as a party to the writ petition and that it should be heard afresh
5. The order of status quo with regard to the possession of the disputed land shall continue until the disposal of the main writ petition.