' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---This petition assails an order dated 12.11.2014, passed by Chairman, Punjab Cooperatives Board for Liquidation, whereby two applications regarding land measuring 897 Kanal 16 Marla and 492 Kanal 09 Marla filed by the petitioner, making a prayer to allow the petitioner to deposit principal amount paid by the defunct Services Cooperative Credit Corporation Limited (SCCCL) plus mark-up and issuance of No Objection Certificate by the concerned committee, were dismissed.
2. The petitioner, claiming himself owner of the property in question, filed an application wherein it was alleged, that an amount of Rs,6,75,00,000/- was received by one Mian Ikram-ul-Haq from defunct SCCCL and the land in question was got transferred in the name of aforesaid defunct corporation; the petitioner in support of his claim, produced photocopies of two credit vouchers dated 29.03.1990 and 17.05.1990 for an amount of Rs,6,00,00,000/- and Rs,75,00,000/-. Lastly prayed, that the No Objection Certificate of the aforesaid land be issued in favour of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner, as evident from the record, was heard by the Chairman, Punjab Cooperatives Board for Liquidation, who on the basis of the record available with the respondent-Board stated in the order, that in fact the land measuring 1564 Kanal, including the land in question, was purchased by the defunct corporation through various sale deeds in the year 1990 for a consideration of Rs,12,29,42,684/- and one Ikram-ul-Haq, with the connivance of others in order to grab and usurp the land, prepared forged documents including credit vouchers etc. In their favour whereas the record of the defunct corporation does not support the contention of aforesaid Ikram-ul-Haq and it is nowhere mentioned in the 'record that the said amount was to be credited in its account. The petitioner, as appears from the findings impugned herein, could not produce the latest Fard Malkiyat in his name because the land in question, in the revenue record, still exists in the name of the defunct corporation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly argued, that the land was purchased by the predecessor of the petitioner but the learned Counsel could not place on record anything to show, that the sale of land in question in favour of the defunct corporation was challenged in any manner whatsoever by his predecessor.
5. As regard the declaratory decree, it has rightly been held by the Chairman, PCBL, that the same does not relate to the title of the land in question and has no legal effect upon the facts of this case.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, despite argued the case at length, could not point out any jurisdictional defect or legal infirmity with the order impugned herein and further, in my opinion, the petitioner had no locus standi to claim the ownership of the land in question or ask for the issuance of Nu Objection Certificate in his favour.
7. The order passed by the Chairman, PCBL is well-reasoned and there is hardly any reason to interfere therewith. Hence, this petition is dismissed having no merits.