' Writ Petitions Nos. 358/R-82 and 3378/82 came up for hearing on 25-1-1983. The first petition was by the petitioners who claim to be owners of property Nos. E/1060 and E/1061 inside Shah Alain Gate, Lahore as transferees from the Settlement Department against the L. D. A. Who claimed title to the properties in dispute having been earlier acquired for it and vesting in the Authority. The second petition was by the tenants five in number in one of the property i,e, E/1061. During the course of hearing on a number of occasions negotiations for a compromise were afoot. On the aforesaid date of hearing it was agreed that the petitioners in the first petition i,e, who claim ownership as transferees from the Settlement Department were prepared to pay a sum of Rs, 6,21,705 to the Lahore Development Authority by instalment of Rs, 2,00,000 by 1st of February, 1983, Rs, 1,50,000 by 31st of March, 1983, another amount of Rs, 1,50,000 by 31st of May, 1983 and the balance of Rs, 1,21,705 by 30th of June, 1983. On receipt of the first instalment on 1-2-1983, the L. D. A. Agreed to allow the petitioners in the first petition to remove the goods lying in the properties and after payment of all the instalments by 30-6-1983, the L. D. A. Agreed to hand over the possession of the properties to the petitioners in the first petition within the next one week. In case of default, it was agreed to on behalf of the petitioners that the payments made will be forfeited and the petition shall stand dismissed automatically. The order to that effect was dictated in the presence of the parties and their learned counsel.
2. Before signatures it occurred that the counsel appearing for the petitioners in the second petition i,e, on behalf to the tenants was not present at the moment of dictation. Therefore, the case was ordered to be put up again on 29-1-1983. On this date the learned counsel for the petitioners in the second petition asked for time to talk to his clients. The case has come up today.
3. Mr. A. R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate for the petitioners in the first petition is accompanied by Mr. Muhammad Kamal Khan petitioner No, 1 who is also an attorney on behalf of his wife, petitioner No, 2, and is accompanied by their son Muhammad Khalil. On instructions and on his own authority the learned Advocate re-affirms the earlier compromise as stated above and so does the learned counsel for the Lahore Development Authority.. As stated on the first occasion viz., 25-1-1983, the learned counsel for the Settlement Department Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad, Advocate states that the Settlement Department had rightly transferred the properties to the petitioners in the first petition and that Settlement Department is not bound by the compromise by the petitioners with the Lahore Development Authority.
4. Mian Sadiq Nisar, Advocate appears on behalf of Mian Nisar Ahmad, Advocate for the petitioners in the second petition who are tenants of some six shops in property No, E/1061, states on his own authority and on instructions of the five petitioners who are present in Court, that the aforesaid compromise is acceptable to the petitioners in the second petition. He further states that it has however, been agreed between these petitioners and the petitioners in the first petition who are the owners of the properties aforementioned that after 30-6-1983 having obtained possession from the Lahore Development Authority, the owners shall deliver possession within the next week of the six shops to the petitioners in the second petition provided the petitioners in the second petition have paid a sum, of Rs, 64,100 between 1-4-1983 and 31-5-1983 on obtaining receipt as a rent for two years commencing from the date of handing over the possession by the petitioners in the first petition to the petitioners in the second petition. This is acceptable to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the first petition. In case of default in payment by the petitioners in the second petition within the due dates, it is agreed to by the two parties and clearly understood that no possession of the shops shall be delivered by the petitioners in the first petition to the petitioners in the second petition and their second petition shall stand dismissed without any further orders. The compromise about the delivery of possession of the shops on payments by the petitioners in the first petition and the petitioners in the second petition is between them and the Lahore Development Authority has nothing to do with it. Lahore Development Authority is only party to the compromise entered into by the petitioners A in the first petition with it which has earlier been incorporated. This order has been dictated on making the parties and their learned counsel having heard and understood it. They accept it. The compromise between the parties aforementioned being in the interest of justice is hereby allowed. The two petitions are accordingly disposed of.