1. ' The petitioners are two out of 33 persons whose claim were verified in May, 1960 by a Claims Officer at Lahore under the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956. On the basis of the verification orders petitioners obtained some allotments in the Punjab but their claims were not yet fully satisfied, when on the application of one Habib Khan, Sardar Hidayat Ullah Khan Mokal, the then Claims Commissioner/ Settlement Commissioner (Land) with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands), N.-W. F. P., Sind, Baluchistan and Punjab at Lahore commenced proceedings to enquire into the allegation that the verification of claims by the aforesaid persons was obtained by means of fraud. These claims were in respect of lands abandoned in the revenue estates of Jawaharpur and Jharera Tehsil and District Delhi and the allegation was that the areas of the aforesaid revenue states had been acquired by the Government of India in the year 1908 divesting all private ownership.
2. ' By an interim order dated 6th July, 1972 Sardar Mokal directed that such allotments obtained in pursuance of the impugned claims which had been confirmed shall not be allowed to be disposed of and further allotment of agricultural lands shall stop forthwith. The petitioners alongwith other affected persons challenged the aforesaid order by means of a writ petition in the Lahore Court and by order dated 11th July, 1972, the High Court was pleased, by way of an interim order, to suspend the operation of the said impugned order.
3. ' It seems the balance of units still unsettled were transferred to Karachi and according to the petitioners Parchi Taqsim Khatoonis for allotment of land were issued to them on 26th June, 1973, in respect of the disputed lands bearing Nos. 261 and 264 Deb Gujro Tapo Songal, Karachi.
4. Subsequently, however, the Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition of the petitioners as premature vide judgment dated 3rd July, 1974. The petitioners sought to challenge the judgment of the High Court but the Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed their petition for leave to appeal on 2nd July, 1976. In the result Cboudhry Muhammad Siddique, Settlement/Claims Commissioner, Lahore as successor of Sardar Mokal resumed the enquiry originally initiated by the latter.
5. ' In the meantime developments took place at Karachi which form the principal background of events that have led to the filing of the present Constitutional Petition. On 13th August, 1976 one Arshad Malik submitted an application to the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Sind alleging that the petitioners had obtained allotments at Karachi by practising fraud upon the Settlement and Rehabilitation authorities through their attorney Abdul Ghafoor Salimi and praying inter alia for cancellation of their allotments. It was stated at the bar on behalf of the petitioners that this application was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner (East), Karachi (respondent) who, in purported exercise of his powers under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land)
6. Settlement) Act, 1958 as notified Officer under section 2 (2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons (Laws Repeal) Act, 1975, issued notice dated 17th November, 1976 to the petitioners and some others for enquiry. The petitioners appeared before him and challenged bis iurisdic'ion and the proceedings initiated by him.
7. ' In the events that happened. Pending the aforementioned proceeding's by the respondent, Ch. Muhammad Siddique, Settlement and Claims Commissioner, Punjab concluded his enquiry and passed final orders on 23rd Februaty, 197g, upholding the original verification orders obtained by the petitioners and holding that no fraud was committed in obtaining the same. This order was also placed befoge the respondent. However by his impugned order dated 14th March, 1978, the respondent ordered the cancellation of the allotments of land issued in favour of the petitioners as having been obtained by fraud and being in excess of their entitlement. The present petition seeks to challenge the legality of the aforesaid order.
8. ' These two applications are each by Arshad Malik and Muhammad Taqi under Order I, rule 10, C. P.
9. C. For being joined as necessary parties to this petition. According to them S. No, 261, comprises an area of 25 acres 13. Ghuntas and S. No, 264, an area of 13 acres 3 ghuntas.
10. ' The cage of Arshad Malik is that one Abdur Rehman was allotted 2 acres 12 ghuntas in these two survey numbers and possession delivered to him of a demarcated portion which was confirmed in his name on 26th June, 1973. Subsequently, he claims, that the said Abdur Rehman sold the allotted land to one Taj Muhammad from whom Arshad Malik acquired rights under an agreement of sale for valuable consideration. Finally Arshad Malik on the basis of a power of attorney from Taj Muhammad sold the land to his mother Begum Suriya Aslam Khan through Registered Sale Deed which is still pending registration. The other intervenor Muhammad Taqi claims that out of the aforesaid survey numbers portions were allotted to one Imam All Qadri, on 3rd July, 1973, which were transferred by the allottee to him by means of Registered Sale Deeds, It is their case that under a Joint Site Plan dated 16th August 1973, the two intervenors have been in joint possession of a compact area of 6.5 acres in the aforesaid two survey numbers which land is now being claimed by the present petitioners. It is alleged that the claim of the petitioners is fraudulent as they manipulated to obtain through Abdul Ghafoor Salimi purporting to be their attorney, Khatoonis for the permanent settlement of their remaining units on the aforesaid two survey numbers. It is not necessary to describe for the present allegations of fraud made in the application. But in a nutshell their case is that after the allotment of land to the predecessors-in-title of the two intervenors no area remained in the said two survey numbers as the Government had taken over the remaining land for public purpose. Nevertheless, Abdul Ghafoor Salimi in collusion and conspiracy with the staff concerned succeeded on 6th November, 1974, in getting mutations in favour of the petitioners and on this basis treating Abdur Rehman and Imam Ali Qadri as co-allottees with the petitioners, obtained an ex pane order of Provisional partition dated 29th March, 1976 from the Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar which was confirmed on 3rd May, 1976 with the result that the land allotted to the intervenors under their Joint Site Plan was allocated to the petitioners and the intervenors were allocated portions already occupied by the Government buildings. Arshad Malik then challenged the order before the Commissioner, Karachi but the latter dismissed his revision by his order dated 19th November, 1976 for want of jurisdiction. On these allagations the two intervenors seek to be impleaded as parties to this petition.
11. ' The question for consideration is whether in the circumstances of this case the two intervenors are necessary or proper parties to be joined in this petition. It was urged by Mr. Ishaq Muhammad Khan. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the two intervenors have no locus standi to be impleaded as parties to this petition, inasmuch as, they do not have a rival claim to the allotments issued in favour of the petitioners, which have been cancelled by the impugned order in this petition. On the other hand, the intervenors contend that they are being deprived of the benefit of their lawful allotments only because of the fraudulent allotments obtained by the petitioners and once these allotments are cancelled as has been done by the respondent by his impugned order, their allotments will be restored to their legitimate effect.
12. It is well settled that no party can be allowed to contest a matter pro bono publico and a necessary party is one who ought to have been joined as a party the proceeding and in whose absence no effective adjudication can be made. On the other hand, a proper party is one whose presence before the Court is necessary to enable it effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the A proceeding. The object for impleading proper parties is to prevent needless multiplicity of proceedings. Courts have, however, warned that the adjudication of a proceeding should not be embarrassed by simultaneous investigation of unconnected controversies, nor should persons who have no interest in the proceeding he added. The main controversy in the present petition relates to the question whether the respondent was competent under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, to commence proceedings and pass the impugned order cancelling the allotments of the petitioners in dispute.
13. My attention was drawn to the notice issued to the petitioners by the respondent with which the proceedings were commenced culminating in the impugned order which is dated 17th November, 1976 (Annexure 'K' to the petition). The basis for initiation of proceedings as explicitly mentioned in the notice was the stay order dated 6th July, 1972 passed by Sardar Hidayatullah Khan Mokal stopping further allotments to the claimants whose claims were under investigation before him.
14. Now as held in Amiruddin v. Hasandin (1) the Registration of Claims (Displaceld Persons) Act, 1956 gives only a right of appeal and revision to an "aggrieved person" under section 7 of the Act and under(' Article 198 of the then Constitution (equivalent to Article 199 of the present Constitution) also the application is competent by an "aggrieved party." The verification of claims is a matter between the persons who abandoned some right in immovable property in India and the State who wants to give them some grant by way of compensation. The strangers to the abandoned property cannot, therefore, be held to be aggrieved persons. Therefore, it was held, the argument that if the claim of the other side is set aside the petitioner will be able to grab the evacuee property cannot and should not be allowed to make him an "aggrieved person" under Articls 98 of the Constitution. Similarly, the mere interest in an action, or a hope in the ultimate result that if he succeeds in the writ petition some other proceedings will be effected, will not make a person an "aggrieved party. It is, therefore, clear to me that the intervenors are not necessary parties to this petition. In Yousuf All v. Fazal Muhammad (2) the petitioner was a local who had {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1969 Lah. 661 (2) 1970 SCMR 681 {{FOOT NOTE}} submitted an L. S. Form for transfer of shop in question, to the Departmental Authorities which was still pending disposal. He sought to be impleaded as a party in a writ petition filed by the respondent challenging the order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner transferring the shop to one Mst. Sughra Asghar who was already impleaded as respondent. The High Court turned down the request of the petitioner and upholding the decision their Lordships observed that being not a party before the Settlement Authorities in the dispute which was eventually taken to the High Court, the petitioner had no right to be impleaded in those proceedings in the High Court.
15. In the present case admittedly the only parties in the proceedings before the respondent were the petitioners and the State.
16. ' It was conceded at the bar by Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khan, learned counsel appearing for intervenor Arshad Malik that he has no locus standi as such to challenge the order of Chaudhry Muhammad Siddique, but claimed to have locus standi by virtue of the fact that the said order was being used against the intervenor which will, therefore, provide locus standi to him. The argument has no substance in view of the legal position already discussed above. Additionally the cause for grievance so far as the intervenors are concerned stems from the order of partition dated 3rd May, 1976 passed by the Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar. It was pointed out at the bar that several suits are pending in this Court on the Original Side where the legality of the said order of partition is under challenge. Not only that but intervenor Arshad Malik himself has filed Constitutional Petition No, 93/79, seeking to challenge the said order which is pending consideration. In this petition intervenor Muhammad Taqi is also admittedly impleaded as a respondent. The question of multiplicity of proceedings as a result of non-joinder of the intervenors does not, therefore, arise as they have already resorted to litigation for the same subject-matter as they seek to agitate by these applications.
17. ' For the foregoing reasons, both intervenors are not entitled to be impleaded as parties to this petition and as such both applications are dismissed.