1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH. J.-This appeal through special leave of this Court is directed against judgment dated 27-9-1980 of the Lahore High Court ; whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of a land reforms case was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners before the High Court (appellants Nos. 1 to 12 herein) were not aggrieved party.
2. ' The said appellants claiming to be purchasers of land from appellant No, 13 (in the High Court as respondent No, 2 with Chairman, Federal Land Commission as respondent No, 1) had challenged the orders of the Federal Land Commission ; whereby the said purchasers were not accepted and adjusted for the purpose of Land Reforms. A learned Single Judge of the High Court relying on some observations of the same High Court in a Division Bench judgment Mst. Raj Bibi and 4 others v.
3. Additional Chief Land, Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (1) held that the seller (appellant No, 13) not having denied the sales in question, .The purchasers writ petitioners were not aggrieved party. Accordingly without going into the merits of the case, the petition was dismissed in limine.
4. Leave was granted to examine whether the approach of the High Court was correct.
5. ' Learned counsel relying on the same judgment, contended that the merits in that case were examined in the context of the purchasers' plea and they were {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1975 Lah. 408 ' given relief. Moreover it is also contended that the seller in this case had not agreed that he would surrender other land in lieu of the sold land because as pleaded by him it was genuinely sold and that it fell within the permissible category of alienations.
6. ' In addition to the above submission we have noted that although the seller was formally made a respondent in writ petition the contents thereof indicated that he was also an aggrieved party and could on his request be transposed as a petitioner, for which a formal request has also been made during the hearing of this appeal, which we have allowed.
7. ' After hearing the learned counsel for all the concerned parties we feel satisfied that even according to the dictum in Mst. Raj Bibi's case all the appellants herein are aggrieved party.
8. Accordingly this appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for decision on the merits to the High Court. In the circumstances of the case the appellants not having requested the High Court for the transposition allowed in this Court, they shall pay the costs of the respondent in the High Court as also in this Court, which as agreed by the learned counsel for the parties are fixed at Rs, 5,000. The remand order is conditional on prior payment of the said costs.