C.M. No.1-C/2021.
ASIM HAFEEZ, J. Application prays for restoration of instant petition dismissed for non-prosecution on 13.01.22, which is supported by an affidavit. In wake of reasons pleaded, application is granted, and civil revision is restored to its original number.
2. Learned counsel are ready for submissions on merits. Case is listed for today and heard.
3. Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 01.04.2015, whereby petitioner's application for permission to be impleaded as party to appeal proceedings was dismissed. It is expedient to reproduce operative part of impugned order, which reads as:
4. The petitioner Muhammad Ahmad Khan has produced no proof of possession along with the application in hand. The copies of the sale deeds annexed with the application belong to the period prior to the promulgation of Notification No.LAC/AC/ 13639 dated 09.09.1982 published in official gazette on 13.09.1982 under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Had petitioner been in possession of part of suit property as an owner at the time of acquisition then his name would have been in the award made by the Land Acquisition Collector, however, petitioner has not produced any copy of the award showing his name therein, hence, possession of the petitioner qua part of suit property cannot be believed by ordinary prudence, hence, petitioner is not necessary party for adjudication of this appeal.
5. Moreover, petitioner has not disclosed as how he got knowledge about pendency of present suit and appeal, hence, this Court is left with no option but to infer that present application has been maneuvred by duping the legal fraternity in order to delay the proceedings of this appeal. The upshot of discussion is that application is devoid of force, hence, dismissed".
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a necessary party, who claims ownership based on two registered sale deeds. Submits that appellants in appeal proceedings are contesting acquisition proceedings and petitioner is also entitled to pursue its interest in said proceedings.
5. When confronted, learned counsel conceded that award regarding subject matter acquisition proceedings was made, after alleged sale deeds. Nothing is available on record or alleged that any objection was raised to the acquisition proceedings, at relevant time. Claim of alleged ownership was purportedly raised to interfere in the proceedings, which culminated through award. Merely because some dispute, if any, is pending regarding acquisition cannot extend any reason or justification to become party to the appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioner's vendor, lnayat Hussain had contested claim of ownership but failed till Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, who drew attention of the Court to order dated 12.05.2012 by Mr. Maqbool Ahmad Langah, Additional Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Lahore Division, Lahore --placed on record through C.M. No.06-C of 2015, allowed vide order dated 08.09.2015 -- to show observations regarding failure of the lnayat Hussain to establish claim of ownership, hence, petitioner has no right.
7. When confronted, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to copies of ford and order dated 09.07.2021 passed in W.P. No. 44996 of 2021, without explaining the relevance and reasoning that how these documents extend any support with respect to the order in question, legality whereof is subject of determination. No illegality is found in the order when petitioner failed A to substantiate its relevance in the context of Order I, Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
8. Civil revision is without merits and same is, hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs.