Civil Miscellaneous No, 750 of 1981.
' By order, dated 25-3-1985, the hearing of this civil miscellaneous application was postponed for a period of two months on the request of the applicant's learned counsel, as she wanted to place certain documents on the file in support of her claim that she is entitled to be impleaded as a party to the writ petition. Her learned counsel states that she applied for the copies of the documents but these were not supplied to her by the Settlement Authorities.
2. The reason put forth by the applicant, to be arrayed as a party to the writ petition, is that Messrs Mirza Ajmal beg and Mirza Amjad Beg, the predecessors-in-interest of present respondents entered into an agreement, dated 21-11-1961, with her mother namely, Mst. Akhtar Jahan, whereby deferred payment to the extent of Rs,16,740 was utilized from her compensation book and one half of the property in dispute surrendered in her favour by them. The applicant claims to be the daughter and sole heir of Mst. Akhtar Jahan, who reportedly has died.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents, categorically asserts that the compensation book of Mst. Akhtar Jahan, deceased was never utilized, by the predecessors-in- interest of the respondents, rather it was used by her elsewhere and in fact it was never made available to the Settlement authorities for its utilization for the purposes of payment of the transfer price of the property in dispute. Both the parties to the writ petition sternly oppose the civil miscellaneous application.
4. It is discernible from the record that the parties to this writ petition are litigating with one another for the property in dispute for the last about 25 yeaRs, Earlier twice the matter was lifted before this Bench in Writ Petitions Nos. 441-R of 1971 and 209-R of 1977. Throughout this period, the applicant, or for that matter her mother through whom she claims, never appeared on the scene. Even now she is not possessed of any document in support of her claim which is vehemently denied by the petitioner as well as the respondents. The controversy raised in the writ petition, can well be decided without arraying the applicant as a party. As a matter of fact, the respondents to the writ petition have accepted the claim of the petitioneRs, Keeping in view the contents of the writ petition, I feel, that the applicant is not even a proper party much less to claim as a necessary party.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this application is disallowed. This order shall not be a bar for her to seek vindication of her rights in accordance with law.
' Shahzad Jahangir for Petitioner.
' Syed Iqbal Haider Zaidi for Respondents. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in person.
' The learned counsel for the parties state that the dispute has been settled outside the Court. Let their statement be recorded.
' Statement of Syed lqbal Haider Zaidi, Advocate counsel for the respondents without S.A.
' The respondents agree that the house in dispute was not available for disposal under the ear- marking Scheme as it was already in possession of the writ petitioner. They further agree that its transfer to the petitioner is in order and have no objection if the instant writ petition is accepted and the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner's order, dated 15-11-1979 impugned therein is set aside. As a matter of fact the parties have entered into a compromise its terms are recorded in the agreement (Exh.R/1), dated 2nd of June, 1985. It bears the signatures of the respondents and I admit its execution. The respondents shall abide by the terms of this agreement.
' I have heard the statement of Syed Iqbal Haider Zaidi, Advocate, counsel for the respondents and I accept the same. The agreement (Exh.R/1) bears the signatures of the petitioner and I admit its execution. The petitioner has already acted upon this agreement. I also pray that the writ petition may be accepted in accordance with the agreement. ORDER OF THE COURT ' In view of the statement of the learned counsel for the parties, recorded today this writ petition is accepted and the order, dated 15-11-1979 passed by the learned Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner set aside. Resultantly, the transfer of the property in dispute in favour of the writ petitioner is upheld. The parties shall abide by the terms of the agreement (Exh.RI1), dated 2-6-1985 and are left to bear their own costs.