Through this single judgment I intend to decide this petition (W.P. No. 5564 of 2012/BWP) as well as W.P. Nos.
9265/2018, 1564/201 1 & 1998/201 1 (connected petitions) having commonality of law and facts inasmuch as in this petition the petitioners have assailed imposition of Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 upon the land comprising Shikargah Cholistan, Bahawalpur and have further prayed for issuance of restrain t order against the respondents regarding their dispossession. Likewise, in the connected petitions the petitioner have sought a restraint order against their dispossession.
2. Mr. Abdul Mughni Farani, Advocate representing Petitioners No.1 to 5 & 13 to 28 in this petition, Petitioners No. 1, 2, 6 to 11 & 14 to 16 in W.P. No. 1998/201 1 as well as for the petitioners in W.P. Nos.9265/2018 & 1564/201 1 submits that the petitioners being repres ented by him being bona fide purchasers from the legal heirs of late Sir Sadiq Muhammad Khan Abbasi, the last Ameer of Bahawalpur (hereinafter to be referred as the late Nawab), their rights are duly protected; that since the suits of the petitioners against the legal heirs of the late Nawab qua the land subject matter of these petitions have been decreed they are entitled to due protection under the law; that since this petition has been admitted to regular hearing non-filing of written statement by the respondents, within the prescribed period of limitation, stance of the petitioners having remained unrebutted deserves to be accepted as prayed for; that it has already been established that the land of Shikargah of the late Nawab could not be resumed under the Martial Law Regulations, 1959, thus, proceedings by the Land Commission in this regard are nullity in the eye of law; that upon the death of the Nawab his legacy has already been divided amongst his legal heirs and the petitioners being bon afide purchasers from the said legal heirs of the late Nawab are entitled to due protection under the law and that act of the office cannot be given precedence over the judicial verdict. Relies on Prince A.M. Abbasi and another v. Federal Government in the States and Frontier Regions Division, Islamabad through its Secretary (PLJ 2002 SC 210) and Qazalbash Waqf and others v. Chief Land Commissioner , Punjab, Lahore and others (PLD 1990 SC 99 ).
3. Khan Muhammad Hussain Azad, Advoc ate for Petitioners No.6 to 12 in this petition and for Petitioners No.3 to 5, 12 & 13 in W.P. No.1998/201 1 states that his clients do not want to press the said petitions. Adds that after resumption of land the late Nawab did not remain owner of Shikargah, therefore, same could not be mutated in favour of his legal heirs, thus, no vendee can seek any right through the legal heirs of the late Nawab. Further adds that the real aggrieved persons are those who are in possession of the suit land under different schemes duly approved by the provincial government. Submits that Petitioner No. 12 in this petition has already filed W.P.
No.657/2019 wherein injunctive order has been issued by this Court. Further submits that the said petitioner has already filed CPLA No. 1293 of 2019 before the Apex Court of the country which is pending adjudication. Relies on Punjab Land Commission through Secretary and others v. Mst. Iqbal Abbasi and others (2013 SCMR 96) and Brig.
His Highness Nawab Muhammad Abbas Khan Abbasi v. Deputy Land Commissioner , Bahawalpur and others (1982 SCMR 991 ).
4. Learned Deputy Attorney General, while producing copy of order , dated 02.10.2018, passed by the August Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeals No.883 to 886 of 2012 and other allied matters states that in view of decision of the Apex Court of the country no relief can be granted in these petitions.
5. Mr. Jamshed Iqbal Khakwani, Advocate representing Cholistan Development Authority , Bahawalpur has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Deputy Attorney General.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also gone through the documents, appended with these petitions as well as the case-law cited at the bar .
7. Admittedly , the petitioners are purchasers from the legal f heirs of the late Nawab, thus, they cannot challenge any proceedings until and unless they are recorded as owner in the relevant revenue record. It is not case of the petitioners that after purchase of the land from the legal heirs of the late Nawab their names have been incorporated as owner in the revenue record, thus, the prayer made in these petitions cannot be granted.
8. During the course of arguments, Mr. Abdul Mughni Farani Advocate, representing Petitioners No.1 to 5 & 13 to 28 in this petition as well as the petitioners in W.P. Nos.9265/2018, 1564/201 1 & 1998/201 1, put much emphasis on the fact that the suits filed by the petitioners against the legal heirs of the late Nawab have been decreed, thus, the petitioners are entitled to due protection under the law. In this regard, I am of the view that until and unless names of the petitioners are incorporated as owner in the revenue record after implementation of the decrees, in their favour , they are debarred to assail any order of the government functionaries. The Apex Court of the country while dealing with locus standi of the purchasers from the legal heirs of the late Nawab, vide order , dated 02.10.2018, passed in Civil Appeals No.883 to 886 of 2012 and other allied matters, has inter-alia observed as under:- "7. With regard to the impleadment applications which have primarily been filed by the subsequent purchasers, it is to be noted that they are to swim and sink with the sellers--"
Undeniably , till date names of legal heirs of the late Nawab have not been incorporated in the revenue record rather proceedings in that regard are under-way . The said fact lends support to the fact that at the most they can be considered as ostensible owners and the petitioners, being subsequent purchasers, have to sink and swim with them and in case the respective vendors of the petitioners succeed to get their names incorporated in the revenue record as owners the petitioners would be at liberty to get enforced the decrees passed against them but no relief can be granted in these petitions.
9. As far as non-filing of written statement is concerned, suffice it to note that irresp ective of said fact the petitioners are bound to prove their right which can be enforced in these proceedings but despite addressing the Court at length learned counsel for the petitioners failed to convince this Court in that respect.
10. As far as stance of Khan Muhammad Hussain Azad Advocate regarding pendency of proceedings before this Court or the Apex Court of the country is concerned, suffice it to observe that the same being independent in nature, have no bearing upon these petitions.
11. For what has been noted above, this petition to the extent of petitioners No.6 to 12 and W.P. No.1998/201 1 to the extent of Petitioners No.3 to 5, 12 & 13 are hereby dismissed as withdrawn whereas to the extent of rema ining petitioners this petition as well as connected petitions (W.P. Nos.9265/2018, 1564/201 1 and 1998/201 1 are dismissed on merits . No order as to costs.
CM. No.16 of 2017 in W .P. No.5564/2012. Application under Section 12(2) CPC.
12. Since the main petition has been dismissed, instant application has become infructuous and is disposed of accordingly .