' This writ petition is directed against the order of the Member, Board of Revenue (Colonies), Punjab, Lahore dated 5-2-1984 whereby he had recorded the principal finding that the land in dispute was in fact intended to be allotted to Col. Muhammad Nawaz and he fully deserves the transfer of this land in his own name as already allowed by the President of Pakistan on 22-4-1981.
2. The case has had a chequered history and gone through various stages with the result that it is now a bulky file running into hundreds of pages. I do not think all that it contains is necessary for the resolution of the points in controversy.
3. This writ petition was very hotly contested from all sides and argued at some length yesterday.
However, since this case involves primarily a dispute between the two real brothers going on for the last several decades' sanity seems to have dawned upon them through good offices of the learned counsel. They made efforts to explore the possibility of a compromise to end this long drawn litigation and strife between members of the same family. The case was accordingly adjourned for today.
4. At the resumed hearing today, learned counsel for the private parties have informed that long drawn litigation between the two real brothers can be ended 'by way of a compromise arrived at between them voluntarily. The terms of the compromise according to the learned counsel are that the land of lot No,3 Rakh Miani, Tehsil Bhalwal District Sargodha will be divided equally between the two brothers. Specification of the area to be retained by each brother has also been worked out.
The land which will fall to the share of Col. Muhammad Nawaz, Respondent No, 3 (Gallantry awardee) shall be square No,33, killas 1 to 10, square No,29, killas 1 to 12, square No,32, killas 1 to 13, square No,31, killas 1 to 12, square No,30 killas 3 to 8, 13 to 18 and 23 to 25 (15 killas), square No,25, killas 3 to 8, 13 to 18 and 23 to 25 (15 killas). The total area thus falling to the share of Respondent No,3 would be 810 kanals. Rest of the area of lot No,3 will fall to the share of Abdul Hamid Khan who is real brother of Col. Muhammad Nawaz. Mr. Zafar Iqbal Chaudhary learned counsel for Respondent No,2, Abid Hussain, a relative of Abdul Hamid of 6 Lancers who was a party to the proceedings before the Member, Board of Revenue, frankly concedes that the finding of the learned Member that his predecessor-in-interest was only a trustee of Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Nawaz is correct. He has no objection to the compromise arrived at between the two brothers. He further submits that it is for Respondent No,3 and his brother to make any settlement or adjustment between themselves.
5. At this stage, it will be pertinent to refer to some of the observations contained in paras.37 and 38 of the impugned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue which are reproduced as under:-- ...There is a precedent also when the Board of Revenue vide its letter No,10861-60/7817-C(G), dated 5-12-1960 had accepted the recommendations of the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Sargodha and sanctioned the transfer of the Tubewell lot measuring 200 A-6 K-5 M situated in Chak No,54- A/SB, Tehsil Sargodha in favour of Raja Adalat Khan on the same terms and conditions on which the original lot was held by Malik Muhammad Afzal. Col. Nawaz Khan being a Gallantry Award- holder has better claims than the allottee in the case quoted above. It is also established that the land was in fact intended and meant by Government to be allotted to Col. Muhammad Nawaz Khan and he fully deserves the transfer of this land in his own name as already allowed by President of Pakistan on 22-4-1981. The Government of Punjab may be moved accordingly for ex post facto sanction to this transfer.
38. As regards the assessm ent of the price of the land in dispute it may be looked into when the land is transferred to Lt.-Col. M.Nawaz Khan, Petitioner."
6. Mr. Ali Muhammad Khokhar, Deputy Secretary from the Board of Revenue who is accompanied by Mr. Altaf Muhammad Khan, Advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to para.5 of the aforesaid decision of the learned Member, Board of Revenue which reads as follows: -- "5. The C.M.L.A. Secretariat vide number 3(9)/SI/ML-2181, dated 2-6-1982 made a reference to the Secretary to the Governor Punjab who vide its letter No,5521, dated 4-7-1982 sent it to the Member, Board of Revenue with the direction that the case of Lt.-Col. (Retd.) M. Nawaz Khan about Lot No,3 of Rakh Miani be considered in the light of the report of the Chairman Federal Land Commission. He was also required to look into the question of violation of Land Reforms Regulations and take steps to review and re-assess the price at which the land had been sold by the Punjab Government to the lessee and also to give legal effect to the compromise arrived at between the two brothers."
' The sum and substance of the decision of the Member, Board of Revenue putting it in brief appears to be that it was established that the land in dispute was in fact intended and meant by Government to be allotted td Col. Muhammad Nawaz and he fully deserves the transfer of this land in his own name as already ordered by the President of Pakistan on 22-4-1981. Furthermore, as is evident from para.5 of the impugned judgment, the Governor of the Punjab vide his letter No,5521, dated 4-7-1982 addressed to the Member, Board of Revenue had directed that the case of Lt.-Col. M.Nawaz Khan about lot No,3 of Rakh Miani be considered in the light of report of the Chairman, Federal Land Commission. He was also required to look into the question of violation of Land Reforms Regulations and take steps to review and re-assess the price at which the land had been sold by the Punjab Government to the lessee and also to give effect to the compromise arrived at between the two brothers.
7. The Deputy Secrertary has pointed out that an order had been passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Sargodha on 12-12-1983 purporting to resume an area measuring 104i kanals out of the disputed land on the ground that the allotment was in excess of prohibited limit to the extent of 652 Produce Index Units. It is further pointed out by him that it is for the parties to take steps against the order of the D.L.C. Because it proceeded on the inferences and assumptions drawn at the time of resuming the aforementioned area. However, in any case, it is outside the purview of the nature of the dispute before this Court in the writ petition under disposal. It is open for the parties to settle their accounts with the Land Commission Authorities who have to act in accordance with law.
8. The question which now arises for consideration is whether the compromise which has been arrived at between the two real brothers and is also being endorsed by all the parties including respondent No,2 ought to be blessed by this Court. I may here refer to the requirement of bringing about compromise and reconciliation between fighting factions of Muslims as ordained by the Holy Qur'an in Surah Alhujra. The following verses may be quoted with advantage:-- "9. If two parties among ' The Believers fall into ' A quarrel, make ye peace ' Between them : but if ' One of them transgresses ' Beyond bounds against the other ' Then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses ' Until it complies with ' The command of Allah ; But if it complies, then ' Make peace between them with justice, and be fair; ' For Allah loves those who are fair (and just).
10. The Believers are but A single Brotherhood: So make peace and reconciliation between your Two (contending) brothers; And fear Allah, that ye May receive mercy."
' I have already discussed the import and scope of the injunction of Almighty Allah as enjoined in the above-quoted two verses from Holy Qur'an in an earlier judgment in the case of Muhammad Tufail and others v. The State and others PLD 1984 Lah. 196 which arose out of a criminal matter. The quarrel referred to above, in my humble view, ought to be construed as embracing all nature of quarrels whether arising out of criminal or civil disputes. The onus which has been placed on a Judge (Qazi) in this behalf is to make peace between the opposing parties with justice on fair terms, In the cited precedent, it had been observed that the Court, indeed, is to be satisfied that parties in adopting a compromise course to settle their disputes to secure peace are motivated by the desire to abide by the command of Almighty Allah. In view of the admissions made by the petitioner and Respondent No,3 before this Court, in peculiar circumstances of this case, the compromise appears to be just and fair.
9. Mr, All Muhammad Khokhar, Deputy Secretary, Board of Revenue has produced before me the file which contains the orders of President of Pakistan dated 22-4-1981 granting sanction for the transfer of existing rights to Col. M. Nawaz who developed the land. The D.S. Informs that this sanction also carries the endorsement of the Governor of province of the Punjab specifically in terms:-- "Since this is a personal matter between the two brothers and has already been adjudicated, the only course open to the two brothers is to pursue the matter in a Court of law. If they have indeed come to a mutual agreement, the right course for them is to go to the Court of law and make a declaration to that effect."
' This is vide Governor's letter dated 13th June, 1981.
10. Even otherwise in so far as compromise between the two brothers is concerned, there is an order of the Governor of Punjab, referred to in para.5 of the impugned order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue directing the learned Member to give legal effect to the compromise arrived at between the two brothers. I do not think it is open for any subordinate functionary after lapse of such a long period to take an objection before this Court against the order of the Governor of Punjab in respect to which nobody raised even his little finger at the appropriate time.
11. It is also permissible to allow a compromise in terms of Order XXIII rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure which requires the Court to consider whether the compromise is lawful.
12. I have considered the compromise, through which respondent No,3 who has been held to be sole and real beneficiary of allotment by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, is making adjustments with his real brother who has been developing the land, according to their statement, before this Court. Such like adjustments are permissible in law. Even otherwise the compromise course advances public policy by shortening litigation and public interest is served through saving of expense and public time. It ought not to be ordinarily refused unless it runs contrary to any legal provision or principle of law. No such thing has been cited before me as an impediment in allowing this compromise. The parties have filed in Court written compromise signed by all the counsel and the parties present with a parayer that this Court may allow the same. A copy whereof has been placed on the record duly signed by me and marked CA/1.
13. The writ petition is, therefore, accepted in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties.
14. Another important aspect of the matter which has been dealt with by the learned Member, Board of Revenue in para.38 of the impugned judgment relates to the assessment of the price of the land in dispute. This aspect shall be looked into when the land is transferred to Lt.-Col. M. Nawaz Khan, respondent No,3 and through this compromise to the petitioner. I have no hesitation in observing that State interest must be looked after and the price of the land be examined and decided as per law. The petitioner and private respondents have no objection to a lawful price being charged. It may further be clarified that the sale price which already stands deposited in favour of the Provincial Government will be adjusted in case land price is revised on the higher side.
Both the brothers will share the price half and half .The Board of Revenue shall in terms of the compromise issue the documents of title and deliver the possession of the land to two brothers according to the compromise voluntarily arrived at between them, of course, subject to payment of difference in price, if any.
15. In view of the consensus course adopted by the parties, there shall be no order as to costs.