' IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, J.---Through the instant petition the petitioners impugn the judgment dated 27.05.2014 whereby I.C.A. No,356/2013, filed by the respondents, has been accepted by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court while setting aside the order dated 2.04.2013, passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in favour of the petitioners, wherein a direction had been issued to the respondents in the following terms:- "4. In the interest of justice and in order to put an end to this protracted litigation, it would be fair if the petitioner is directed to pay reasonable price worked out by the Price Assessment Committee in the sum of Rs,3,12,500/- per Kanal as it stood in the year 1984 with the direction to the respondent LDA that if the said payment is made, Plot No,209, Block-P, Gulberg-III, Lahore be allocated to the legal heirs of Muhammad Sadiq."
2. The genesis of the instant lis are that Plot No,209, Block-P, Gulberg-III, Lahore which is consisting of 22 marlas is stated to be in occupation of the petitioners who raised a building thereon. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely Muhammad Sadiq had earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction which had been dismissed on 15.01.1993 and appeal against which was also met the same fate on 25.10.1983. Thereafter, a writ petition had been filed assailing the said order which was disposed of in the following terms:- ' On this writ petition coming up before me, I directed the petitioner to approach the authorities in the L.D.A. And to explain them his pitiable position in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. He has been accommodated and heard by the L.D.A. With due consideration for his difficulties.
2. Mr. Saeed Ahmad Estate Officer is present with the record. He states that the area under the occupation of the petitioner is about 22 marlas and since he is expressing his financial difficulties to pay the price of the same, a new plot has been carved out by shortening the area so as to allow the construction to stand with sufficient marginal spaces. He further submits the L.D.A. Has accepted in principle that the petitioner should not be uprooted or his structure pulled down provided he is ready to pay the reasonable price fixed by the Price Committee which is composed of three senior officers of the L.D.A. This is acceptable to the petitioner who is present in person.
3. In view of this position, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the stance taken by both the parties."
' Since the respondents were not following the said directives therefore, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners being dissatisfied filed Writ Petition No,7837/1993 through which a direction was sought to be issued to the respondents for compliance of the said order whereupon fresh direction was issued to the respondents vide order dated 28.02.1994 in the following terms:- "2. The Price Committee shall expedite the matter and determine the reasonable Price (not the market price) as was prevailing in the year 1984."
' Thereafter, the Authority of the respondents in its meeting held on 9.01.2012 took the following decision:- "The Authority observed that the orders dated 28.02.1994 passed in Writ Petition No,7837/1993 should have been assailed as the petitioner was an out-right encroacher. The Authority therefore, decided that an appeal with condonation of delay be filed against these orders, in view of the LDA's interest involved."
' Inspite of the above decision, the respondents did not file any appeal. However, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No,2851/2012 with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition may kindly be accepted and the impugned order dated 09.01.2012 passed by the respondent No,1 may kindly be set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to implement the orders of this Honourable Court in its true letter and spirit and to submit its compliance report within a definite time framed by this Honourable Court, after receiving the assessed price of the plot in question and by transferring the said property in the name of petitioner, accordingly, in the interest of justice.
' It is also prayed that the possession of petitioner over the plot in question may kindly be protected."
' The said writ petition had been accepted by a learned Single. Judge of the High. Court in the terms mentioned above which was assailed by the respondents by filing I.C.A. No,356/13 which has been accepted by a Division Bench of the High Court by holding as under:- "7. When we noted all the abovementioned facts and the matter is very simple that the writ- petitioner/respondent being in unauthorized possession of suit property, originally which was of 22- marlas and the order passed in civil revision shows that the plot has been carved out by shortening the area there is no mention that how much area is now of the suit plot. Even the suit was filed for permanent injunction, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 15.01.1983 and appeal was also dismissed by the learned first appellate court on 25.10.1983. On the statement of official i,e, Estate Officer of L.D.A. And the counsel on behalf of L.D.A. Who appeared before the court on 22.02.1984 has actually not made the statement that the plot will be allotted to the writ-petitioner or proprietary rights will be given to the writ-petitioner. In this view of the matter, we have noticed that the suit property is public property worth million of rupees. Without any authority concession given or statement made by the Estate Officer does not give any right to the writ petitioner whose suit as well as appeal was dismissed, and that too, in the suit the prayer was of permanent injunction. If any process has been started by the Authority for assessment of price of plot, the same does not bound the authority to allot or transfer A the plot in the name of writ-petitioner.
Even otherwise, writ-petitioner has also not been able to show that he ever deposited any tentative amount or offered the same to the authority to show his bona fide after the passing of order dated 22.02.1984 in Civil Revision No,1653/D/1983. We are of the view that this Court while disposing of Civil Revision No,1653/D/1983 has not passed any executable decree, nor the same could have been passed in view of the prayer made in the suit. Further the photocopies of incomplete minutes of meeting have been appended with the writ petition in hand as impugned order. We are also of the view that any offer for allotment or transfer of plot is the prerogative of the Authority in, accordance with section 6, the Authority established under section 4 of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975 (XXX of 1975). The predecessor of writ-petitioner never claimed any vested rights in the suit plot except unauthorized possession.
8. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the order Passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court impugned in this appeal is over and above than the prayer made by the writ-petitioner in his writ petition. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and the order dated 02.04.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that vide order dated 22.02.1984 passed in Civil Revision No,1653/D/1983 the respondents had accepted in principle that the petitioners should not be uprooted or their structure shall not be pulled down as they were ready to pay a reasonable price fixed by the Price Assessm ent Committee (hereinafter to be referred as the Committee) and a statement had been made by a senior Officer of the respondents on the basis of which the Committee had determined its price as Rs,3,12,500/ per kanal in the year 1984 which is acceptable to the petitioners and they are ready to pay the same. When learned counsel was pointedly asked that on what basis the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was and at present the petitioners are in occupation of the plot in question and what titled documents do they have in this regard, he frankly stated that the petitioners do not have any titled documents but they are in occupation of the said plot for more than three decades.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the judgments/orders of the fora below as well as the material placed on the record. It has been observed that the petitioners do not have any titled documents in their favour with regard to the plot in question as such they are in illegal occupation of the said plot. It has been further observed that through process of law they tried to legalize their illegal occupation which has rightly been taken note by the Division Bench of the High Court while passing the impugned judgment. We, on our own; by perusing the material placed before us found that neither the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners nor the petitioners have any vested right with regard to the plot in question, in the absence whereof, they are undoubtedly in illegal and unauthorized occupation of the said plot which cannot be permitted to be legalized by misuse of the process of the law. As such we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment.
5. For what has been discussed above, we do not feel persuaded to etercise our jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. This petition, having no merits, is therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.