' AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J.---Through instant petition filed on 20th July 2011 by the petitioner namely Hafiz Muhammad Aslam son of Shaikh Muhammad Yousuf, the petitioner prayed- for issuance of direction by this Court to the respondents to issue the allotment letter for grant of 99 years lease of the subject land i,e, 9 acres out of Naclass No,24, Deh Dih Korangi Town in favour of the petitioner on 25 percent of market price as provided in the statement of conditions for industrial purpose.
Restraining orders were also sought in respect of the subject land seeking directions of this Court to the respondents from creating any harassment or issuing threats to the petitioner of his dispossession from the subject land, which according to the petitioner, is given on 30 years lease to the subject petitioner for poultry farming purposes. Thereafter, the petitioner filed two amended petitions on 27-2-2012 and 15-12-2012 by impleading the other private and official respondents as a party with further prayer amongst other, to set aside the &der dated 18-5-2010 passed by respondent No,8, namely, Qazi Jan Muhammad, Deputy Commissioner {East) Karachi, whereby the lease granted in favour of the petitioner for 30 years was cancelled and the land was resumed by the Government.
2. The brief facts as stated in the memo of petition are that the petitioner, after having acquired the 9 acres of land out of Naciass No, 24, Deh Dih, Korangi Town on 30 years lease for poultry farming purposes, constructed the poultry farm and was earning his livelihood not only for himself but for his family also comprises of 15 persons. The petitioner also declared the said poultry farm in his wealth tax returns as well as obtained NTN number in respect of his poultry farm. The petitioner after getting the approval got installed electricity and water on subject land for carrying on such business. The petitioner's lease in respect of subject land was further extended by the Government of Sindh, Board of Revenue uptil 2016.
3. The Government of Sindh, respondent No,1 on 3-12-2010, issued a Gazette Notification under section 10(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, wherein they made some amendments whereby in terms of condition No,10(a) the Government was authorized to convert any existing 30 years lease granted for poultry or wahi chahi or agriculture or cattle farming purposes, into lease upto 99 years for industrial purposes on the application of the lessee.
Thereafter, in order to take benefit of the aforesaid notification, since the notification of 2006 was applicable as the petitioner since 16-12-2006 was pursuing his case for conversion of his 30 years lease to 99 years for industrial purpose, in this regard, petitioner wrote a letter to the Chief Minister, Government of Sindh on 16-12-2006, which was duly received and the worthy Chief Minister passed an order thereon as "put up for summary". Pursuant to such order on 6-2-2007, the Deputy Secretary, (Coordination) addressed a letter to the Member (Land Utilization), Board of Revenue, Sindh for implementation of the aforesaid order of the Chief Minister. In furtherance to the above on 3-11-2007, the then DDO, Revenue informed the Section Officer of respondent No,2 that the land of the petitioner is not affected. In continuation to the above, on 1-11-2007, same letter was replied and on 12-11-2007, the report was submitted that the petitioner indeed is the lawful grantee of the subject land and thereafter, a proper sketch of such land was also prepared. In continuation to the above, letter dated 9-9-2007 was issued by the government officials and based upon aforesaid letters on 30-4-2007, the then District Officer (Revenue) wrote a letter to the then EDO (Revenue) mentioning therein that the petitioner seeks possession of land in question since 1984-85 and at the site old poultry farm and sheds are standing and poultry business is being run. It was further mentioned in the said letter that previous show-cause notice was later on withdrawn on the ground that the lessee is running Poultry Farm successfully since long. Further on 16-3-2007, same situation was also conveyed to the other government officials by the Mukhtiarkar, Revenue, Korangi Town. It has been stated that the petitioner deposited the annual lease money up till 2016, which fact is also not disputed and can be further verified through documents/letters available on record.
It has been further stated in the memo of petition that Notification No,09-294-03/50-I/735 dated 24th November, 2010 was issued in Sindh Government Gazette dated 13-12-2010, whereby amendments in the statement of conditions for grant of State Land for non-agricultural purpose including amenity, residential, flat site, incremental housing, residential-cum-commercial, commercial, industrial proposes on lease upto 99 years, notified vide Notification No,09-294-03/ SO-I/336 dated 25th February, 2006. The petitioner approached the concerned Government Department for extending the lease of such land in his favour for 99 years, however, the case of, the petitioner was not proceeded, whereas, such benefit was duly extended to other poultry farm holders and the petitioner was being discriminated, therefore, the petitioner filed instant petition with a prayer to be treated in accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, contended that in view of the discrimination by the respondents being meted out to the petitioner, whereby, the request of the petitioner for grant of 99 years lease of his land i,e, 9 acres out of Naclass No,24 Deh, Dih Korangi Town in favour of the petitioner on 25 percent of market price as provided for industrial purposes pursuant to aforesaid notification was not being acceded by the respondents without assigning any reasons, whereas, the said lease of 99 years was being extended to other poultry farm holders and the petitioner was being discriminated, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that during pendency of the instant petition, the petitioner came to know about cancellation of the lease by respondent No, 8 vide order dated 18- 5-2010, whereas, neither any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner for such cancellation nor the said order was ever communicated by the respondent, who for the first time, came to know regarding such order of cancellation after filing of instant petition, therefore, the petitioner has filed the amended petition with further prayer to set aside the said order of cancellation of the lease for being patently illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned, counsel for the petitioner has referred to the various documents filed along with instant petition in respect of the subject land of 9 acres including Ijazatnama dated 30-1-1985, Extract of Form-VII alongwith Sketch of the subject lease for 30 years, various letters issued by the concerned Mukhtiarkar (Revenue), Korangi Town, CDGK and copies of. Challan paid by the petitioner in respect of subject land in support of his entitlement and possession over the subject land i,e, 9 acres out of Naclass 24 of Deh Dih, Korangi Town, Karachi. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner, who has a valid lease for poultry farm purposes for 30 years, is in possession of such land and is carrying on his business of poultry farming and has never violated any of the terms of Ijazatnama or lease issued by the respondent in favour of the petitioner. Per learned counsel, similar attempts to cancel the lease of the petitioner were earlier made by the Revenue Department, however, vide order dated 2-8-1993 issued by the Member, Land Utilization Department, such proceedings were set aside and it was observed by the learned Member .(L.U.) that the petitioner has not violated any of the terms of the lease. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order passed by the Member Land Utilization Department was in the nature of judicial order, which was not challenged by the respondents before any forum and has attained finality and amounts to a decree in terms of section 2 read with section 5 of the Land Revenue Act, 1979, therefore, any subsequent proceedings on the basis of same allegations and for the same cause of action i,e, cancellation of lease and resumption of the land, are not sustainable in law. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even without prejudice to hereinabove, the impugned order of cancellation of lease and resumption of land is patently illegal and of no legal consequence, as neither any show-cause notice has ever been issued or served upon the petitioner nor any opportunity of being heard has been provided to the petitioner, who has been condemned unheard. Learned counsel further contended that this is a case of highhandedness and arbitrarily exercise of authority by public functionaries, who in the instant case, have acted malafidely in order to extend favouritism to respondents Nos.7 and 15, and for illegal personal gains. Per learned counsel, during pendency of the instant petition, when notices were already issued to the respondents, and after inspection of the poultry farm on the subject land of 9 acres by the Nazir of this Court, the official respondents, with connivance of private respondents, by using physical force through SSP Malir, Rao Anwar, dispossessed the petitioner from his land illegally, removed the infrastructure built thereon along with large number of chickens, and handed over the possession of 04 acres out of 9 acres of land of the petitioner to the private respondents, in an illegal manner, whereafter, the lease was also granted to the respondents Nos.7 and 15 by manipulating illegal documents. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents Nos.7 and 15 neither paid the requisite entire amount nor complied with other legal requirements of statement of conditions 2006, and in spite of such admitted position, in order to usurp the land, already leased out in favour of the petitioners for thirty years upto 2016, the revenue authorities have illegally leased out 4 acres of the subject land to respondents Nos. 7 and 15, which act on their part is patently illegal, without authority and liable to be cancelled/set aside, whereas, the private respondents Nos. 7 and 15 are in fact encroachers upon the land of petitioner. Per learned counsel, since the very basic order dated 18-5-2010, whereby the lease of the subject land, which was leased in favour of the petitioner for 30 years valid upto 2016, has been cancelled, is without jurisdiction and has been passed without any lawful authority, hence liable to be set aside, therefore, any subsequent order(s) or the proceedings and the superstructure built thereon pursuant to such order, is also of no legal consequence, hence liable to be set reside. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the following reported cases:--
(1) Muhammad Sabir Khan and 13 others v. Rahim Bakhsh and 16 others PLD 2002 SC 303
(2) Messrs Siddiq Textiles Ltd. v. Board of Revenue, Punjab 1989 MLD 3485
(3) Bakhtawar v. Amin 1980 SCMR 89
(4) Syed lqbal Ahmad Gilani v. Government of Punjab 2001 YLR 1716
(5) Muhammad Amin v. Allana PLD 1988 Rev. 29
(6) Government of the Punjab v. Hudabia Textiles Mills, Faislabad 2001 SCMR 209
(7) Abdul Majeed v. Muhammad Subhan 1999 SCMR 1245
(8) Kaley Khan v. Member Board of Revenue (Colonies), and others 1989 MLD 2187
(9) Dewan Petroleum (Pvt.) and others v. Government of Pakistan and others 2010 CLD 988
(10) Engro Fertilizers Limited v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Federation of Pakistan, Islamabad and others PLD 2012 Sindh 50
(11) Haji Haroon Mandrah and another v. Abdul Rahim and others 2001 CLC 1312
(12) Manther, and others v. Member (Relief and Settlement) Board of Revenue Sindh, and others 1986 MLD 694
(13) Rehmat Khan, and others v. MBR (Colonies), and others 1992 CLC 1536
(14) Saifur Rehman v. Muhammad Ayub NLR 2000 Civil 333
(15) Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quide-Azam International, Airport, Karachi 1998 SCMR 2268.
5. ,Conversely, Mr. Ahmed Pirzada, learned counsel for the respondent/Revenue Department supported the impugned order dated 18-5-2010 passed by Additional District Officer (Revenue)/Collector Zone-II (presently Deputy Commissioner East, Karachi) and submits that since the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of the lease as the land was not being utilized for the purpose it was leased out, therefore, on the report of Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) Korangi To.Wn, the lease was cancelled.. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the Revenue Department that the petitioner, instead of filing an appeal against the impugned order in terms of Section 161 of Land Revenue Act, has filed instant petition, which is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Learned AAG has adopted the arguments advance by the learned counsel for the respondent/Revenue Department.
6. Messrs Yawar Farooqi and Irfan Ahmed Memon, learned counsel for respondents Nos.7 and 15 at the very outset have submitted that o4 acres of land from Naclass No,24, Deh Dih Korangi Town, Karachi, has been leased out by Government of Sindh vide registered Lease Deed dated 12-12-2011 for 99 years in favour of respondent No,7, therefore, no exception can be drawn by this Court under Constitutional jurisdiction with regard to entitlement of private respondents. Per learned counsel, the respondent is the bona fide purchaser of the subject land and the lease granted in their favour unless cancelled by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction cannot be interfered by any third party. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.7 and 15 that no notice whatsoever either from this Court or by the Nazir was issued before the interim orders, which were passed by this Court during pendency of this petition, whereas, the respondents Nos.7 and 15 are in lawful possession of 4 acres of land and have not encroached upon the land of the petitioner as alleged in the instant petition. It has been further contended by the learned counsel that huge amount as detailed in para 4 of the affidavit in support of the application under Order I Rule 10(2), C.P.C. Filed by Messrs Polad Irani, the Sales Manager of respondent No,7 has been paid towards lease charges, whereas the requirements of statement of conditions have duly been complied by the respondents Nos.7 and 15, whereafter the subject land has been leased out in their favour for 99 years and the possession was handed over by the concerned Mukhtiarkar (Revenue)
Korangi Town, Karachi, vide Possession Order dated 27-12-2011. Per learned counsel, 9 acres of land in Naclass No,24 of Deh Dih, Korangi Town, which was earlier leased out in favour of the petitioner for 30 years lease for poultry farming purpose was cancelled vide order dated 18-5-2010 by the revenue authorities and the land was resumed by the Government of Sindh and thereafter 04 acres out, of such 09 acres land has been leased out in favour of respondents Nos.7 and 15 through registered lease for industrial purposes, which cannot be interfered under Article 199 of the Constitution in the instant petition, whereas, if the petitioner is aggrieved by such act, he may file appropriate proceedings seeking cancellation of the lease before the competent Court of -civil jurisdiction. Learned counsel has also referred to a Suit No,15 of 2012 filed by respondent No,7 pending before the learned Single Judge of this Court against Government of Sindh, Revenue Authorities and the petitioner, seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of 4 acres land from Naclass No,24, Deh Dih, Korangi Town, Karachi, and submitted that title of the land can be determined by the Civil Court in the aforesaid suit and not through instant petition, which is liable to be dismissed in limine. Mr. Aamir Mansoob Qureshi, learned counsel for respondent No,16 has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondents Nos.7 and 15.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, private respondents as well as the counsel for the Board of Revenue and the learned Assistant Advocate General Sindh and perused the record with their assistance. From perusal of the contents of the petition duly amended by the petitioner and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the fact regarding grant of an area of 9 acres out of Naclass No,24, Deh Dih Korangi Town, Karachi, by the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi East, vide order dated 1-2-1984 to the petitioner for 30 years lease for Poultry Farming purposes and its renewal uptil 2016 by the Government of Sindh, Board of Revenue has not been disputed that the petitioner took over the possession of the subject land after making payment of the requisite charges by complying all the code formalities and got installed electricity and water connection over the subject land started his poultry farm business and also declared the same in his wealth tax return. The documents filed by the petitioner along with instant petition including Ijazatnama, paid challans, Extract Form-II, grant of land in favaour of the petitioner on 30 years lease for poultry farming, correspondence of the petitioner with the concerned Mukhtiarkar and Revenue Authorities in respect of subject land, and the payment of utility bills of, electricity and water and sewerage in respect of poultry farm business of the petitioner on the subject land, also supported the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding petitioner's continuous possession and carrying on the business of poultry farming on the subject land by the petitioner before filing instant petition. It has also come on record through inspection of the subject land carried out by the Nazir of this Court pursuant to order dated 26-12-2011 passed on the application of the petitioner that during pendency of the instant petition and the stay granted by this Court on 29-12-2011 the possession of the petitioner over the subject land was forcibly disturbed by the official respondents by use of police force, sheds were demolished and birds (chickens) were removed. It is also pertinent to note that previously, in the year 1993, similar attempts to cancel the lease of the petitioner in respect of same subject land were made by Revenue Authorities by issuing Suo Motu Notice dated 1-4-1989 to cancel the lease of the subject land, however, the Member (Land Utilization) Department vide order dated 2-8-1993 set aside such proceedings in Suo-Motu Revision No,1989-90 vide order dated 2-8- 1993 of the revenue authorities, whereby it was held as under:-- "4. However, the record clearly proves that the respondent has incurred huge amount over the construction of poultry farm and it is functioning on the leased land granted by the Collector, Karachi East. In support of his version, the respondent has produced various bills of KESC, KW & SB, and the Korangi Creek Cantonment for various years showing that the lessee has been paying the charges of above agencies on account of the utilities used for his poultry farm. He has produced his Income Tax returns and assessment orders for various years upto 1992. This shows that the respondent is genuinely running a poultry farm for the livelihood of his family and has acquired vested rights.
5. In view of the foregoing position, there does not seem hardly any justification to penalize the lessee for the administrative lapses pointed out in the show-cause notice. If the lease is cancelled at this stage, it would not only cause harassment to the lessee but also considerable financial loss to him. In these circumstances, cancellation action would not amount to doing justice to the respondent.
6. Accordingly, the notice is hereby vacated and. Grant is restored subject to the condition that the land is not required for or involved in any development scheme of government."
8. Initially through instant petition, the petitioner has sought declaration to the effect that petitioner is entitled for grant of 99 years lease in respect of 9 acres of the land already leased for 30 years in favour of the petitioner for poultry farm purposes on payment of 25 percent of market price as provided in the statement of conditions for industrial purposes and prayed that directions may be issued to the respondents in this regard, whereas, request for further directions to the respondents not to create harassm ent and issue threats of dispossession of the petitioner from the subject land, was also made. However, during pendency of the instant petition, the petition was duly amended in view of certain developments, particularly the knowledge gained by the petitioner regarding an order dated 18-5-2010, cancelling the lease, which was granted in favour of the petitioner for 30 years in respect of subject land i,e, 9 acres out of Naclass No, 24, Deh Dih, Korangi Town, Karachi, which according to the petitioner, was passed behind the back of the petitioner as neither any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner before passing such order nor such order has ever been communicated or served upon the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 18-5-2010 has been passed behind the back of the petitioner without issuing any show-cause notice or providing an opportunity of being heard could not be controverted by the counsel for the Revenue Department, who was specifically asked to show or place on record, acknowledgment of service of such show-cause notice and the impugned order dated 18-5-2010 upon the petitioner, however, he failed to place on record anything to controvert the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard. Even from perusal of the impugned order dated 18-5-2010, it has been noted that neither any reference regarding service of show-cause notice upon the petitioner has been made nor the contention of the petitioner has been recorded as nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioner and the order was in fact an ex parte order. It will be advantageous to reproduce the relevant observation of the Additional District Officer (Revenue)/Collector Zone-II, City District Government. Karachi, in its order dated 18-5-2010 regarding service of notice as under:-- "The notice was issued against him and sent to the Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) Korangi Town, Karachi, for service and returned"
' The above observation clearly shows that no direct notice was either issued to the petitioner by the concerned Additional District Officer (Revenue)/Collector Zone-II, City District Government, Karachi, nor the Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) Korangi Town, Karachi, filed any report regarding service of such show-cause notice upon the petitioner. It may be further observed that "while passing the impugned ex parte order, the Additional District Officer (Revenue) has neither referred to or reproduced the contents of the alleged show-cause notice nor has even referred to or reproduced the alleged report of the Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) Korangi Town, on the basis of which, it was held that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the lease agreement/ Ijazatnama and he is not utilizing the land for the purpose which it was leased out to him". The irresistible conclusion, which can be drawn from the facts and circumstances of this case and the material available on record, is that before passing the impugned order dated 18-5-2010 neither any show- cause notice was issued or served upon the petitioner nor any opportunity of being heard was provided by the respondent to enable the petitioner to explain his position regarding allegations of having violated the terms and conditions of the lease. Similarly, neither the allege report of the Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) Korangi Town, if any, was prepared in the presence of the petitioner nor he has ever been confronted with such adverse report by the respondent. Through impugned order, it appears that the Revenue Authorities have taken an adverse action on the basis of same set of allegations, which have B already been found to be false and baseless by the learned Member, (Land Utilization) Department vide order dated 2-8-1993 in Suo-Motu Revision No,1989-90, which amounts to penalize the petitioner twice on the same set of allegations, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law and fact in this count as well. Moreover, leasehold rights of a lessee, who has not otherwise, violated the terms of such lease or grant, cannot be cancelled unless the requisites of Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, are fulfilled or declaration of cancellation of such document of lease is sought from competent Court of jurisdiction. Reference in this regard can be made to the case of PLD 1975 SC 624 (Mst. Hamida Begum v. Mst. Murad Begum), PLD 1975 SC 355 (the Majlis-i-Intizamia, Jamia Masjid v. The Secretary to Government of Pakistan) and PLD 1998 Kar.
348 (Mrs. Zaibunnisa v. KDA and others).
9. In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of this case, the impugned order passed by the Additional District Officer (Revenue)/Collector Zone-II, City I District Government, Karachi, is patently illegal and suffers from legal defects and has been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of being heard has been provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Moreover, it does not contain any valid reasons, hence the same is violative of express provisions of Section 24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897, therefore, not sustainable in law, which was accordingly set aside vide our short order dated 21-5-2014 and these are the detailed reasons for such short order.
10. While passing the short order dated 21-5-2014, whereby the impugned order dated 18-5-2010 was set aside, the parties were directed to maintain status quo till the receipt of detailed reasons in the instant case in order to clarify the consequence of the decision by this Court and the legal status of the parties concerned on the subject land of 09 acres. Since we have already held that the impugned order dated 18-5-2010 passed by the Additional District Officer (Revenue)/Collector Zone-II, City District Government, Karachi, in the instant case is patently illegal and has been issued in violation of principles of natural justice and also violative of the express provisions of Section 24- A of General Clauses Act, 1897, therefore, not sustainable in law, and has accordingly been set aside, therefore, the subject land i,e, 9 acres out of Naclass No,24, Deh Dih Korangi Town, Karachi, whose lease for poultry farming purpose for 30 years in favour of the petitioner is valid upto the year 2016 stands restored in favour of the petitioner, who is entitled to enjoy the benefit of such lease till its expiry as referred to hereinabove with exclusive possession over the entire 9 acres. As regards claim of the petitioner for grant of 99 years lease (for industrial purpose) in his favour in respect of subject land pursuant to the Notification issued by the Government of Sindh and subject to statement of conditions as referred to hereinabove, we have not recorded any finding in this regard as the same involves the factual scrutiny and determination of the claim of the petitioner by the competent authority in accordance with law. However, the petitioner is at liberty to seek his remedy by filing proper claim before the concerned authority/forum, which shall be examined and decided after proper scrutiny of the facts, however, strictly in accordance with law and the policy in this regard.
11. Before parting with this order, we may further clarify that in the instant constitution petition filed by the petitioner mainly against the conduct and the order passed by the Revenue Authorities, we are not inclined to record any finding with regard to the bona. Fide or genuineness of the claim of private respondents Nos.7 and 15 in respect of 4 acres of land out of 9 acres of petitioner's land.
However, it is clarified that since the subject 9 acres of land stood allotted on lease for 30 years, valid upto the year 2016, in favour of the petitioner, namely, Hafiz Muhammad Aslam, and the said land was never legally cancelled or resumed by the Revenue Department in the instant case, therefore, any subsequent allotment or lease of the said land to any other party i,e, respondents Nos.7 and 15 by the Revenue Authorities, which land was not even available or vested in the Revenue Authorities during this period, was equally illegal and of no legal effect, therefore, no right, entitlement or possession in respect of 04 acres of land out of 9 acres of such land of the petitioner can be claimed by any party i,e, respondents Nos.7 and 15. Since the basic order dated 18-5-2010 passed by the Additional District Officer (Revenue)/Collector Zone-II, City District Government Karachi, in the instant case has been declared to be void and illegal, therefore, any subsequent order of granting allotment/lease of subject land by Revenue Authorities pursuant to such illegal order is equally illegal and of no legal effect. A Division Bench of this Court in the case reported as PLD (sic) Kar 348 (Mrs. Zaibunnisa v. KDA and others) has held as under:-- "Hence, we declare the petitioner to be the exclusive owner having full rights of ownership title in respect of Plot No, R-620, Sector 15-B measuring 120 sq. Yards situated in K.D.A. North Karachi Township and before we part with these reasons we may observe that the respondent No, 4 has only acquired title after the deed of cancellation of the petitioner lease came to hold the field which has been declared to be illegal by us. Hence, whatever consequences have ensued in terms of transfer of title from the respondent No, 4 to respondent No, 5 and onwards to respondent No, 6, but the initial acquisition of right by the respondent No, 4 has been declared to be illegal, then all subsequent transfers are also illegal."
12. However, since the respondents Nos.7 and 15 have admittedly made payment of certain amounts, as referred to herein above, as part payment in respect of 4 acres of land to the Revenue Authorities, we would direct the Revenue Authorities to immediately refund the said amount to respondents Nos.7 and 15 within a reasonable period or they may be compensated by allotting alternate land on lease subject to reasonable terms and conditions, strictly in accordance with law and as per policy. This order is, however, without prejudice to any other right or claim of respondents Nos.7 and 15 against the Revenue Authorities, who are at liberty to either claim the refund of the amount from the Revenue Authorities, which has already been paid by them in respect of allotment/lease of 4 acres of land or may seek any other relief, which they may deem appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the case, by filing appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
' Petition stands disposed of in the above terms along with listed application(s) with no order as to costs.