1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---The relevant facts are that land measuring 10 kanals and 18 marlas is Khasra No.142-min, situate in Mauza Bhekeywal, Tehsil and District Lahore was allotted and confirmed in favour of Professor Muhammad Usman (now deceased and represented by his legal heirs) in pursuance of the order dated 23-1-1973, passed by Mr. Zakaullah Naik, Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore. The High Court vide judgment dated 6-4-1988, passed in W.P. No. 402-R of 1976 has set aside the aforesaid order alongwith other orders of allotment made in Mauza Bhekeywal, Tehsil and District Lahore. The reasons for this order are contained in the consolidated judgment passed in W.P. No.89-R of 1973 (M/s. Rizwan Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Zakaullah Naik etc.). This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the aforesaid order and judgment. The learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have been heard. On perusal of writ petition filed by the respondents (Punjab University Academic Staff Association, respondent No.1 and the University of the Punjab, respondent No.2) it transpires that the said petition was mainly directed against the order of (Ch. Muhammad Faiz), Addl. Settlement Commissioner (Lands), with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 25-3-1974, who had allotted a major part of the disputed land to Mst. Noor Jehan, daughter and Abdul Salam, son of Muhammad Abdul Latif and Ahmad Khan son of Sher Bahadur Khan (respondents Nos.3 to 5 in W.P. No.402-R of 1976) from whom respondents 7 to 11 in the aforesaid writ petition claimed to have purchased parts of the lands allotted to them for valuable consideration. So far as the allotment in favour of Professor Muhammad Usman dated 23-1-1973, is concerned we find that the same has not been specifically challenged in the writ petition. The only reference thereto appears in the following to averments made in the writ petition. "the remaining respondents are also claiming some part of the land owned by petitioner No.1"
2. While the second averment is contained in paragraph 5 of the writ petition which reads as follows:- - "that respondents 12 to 14 also claiming some title to the land sold to the petitioners and have, therefore, been impleaded as parties to the writ petition (Professor Muhammad-Usman was respondent No.13 in the writ petition)."
3. The prayer clause is as follows:-- - "It is, therefore, prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to declare the order of respondent No.2, dated 25-3-1974 (annexure-B), as without lawful authority and of no legal effect and that any transaction emanating from the said order is equally without any legal effect. In consequence, it be declared that the sale made in favour of the petitioners by respondent No.1 on 29-3-1974, is valid and subsisting. Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit in the circumstances may also be granted to the petitioners."
4. It will, therefore, be seen that the allotment made in favour of Professor Muhammad Usman has not been specifically challenged and in the prayer clause also that no relief as against him has been specifically sought.
5. Now, it is established law that a writ can be granted only in terms in which it has been applied for and the relief must be confined to the prayer made in the writ petition and that the High Court cannot issue a writ suo motu see A.G. Khan v. Shujauddin Qureshi and others PLD 1961 SC 1 and Akhtar Abbas and others v. Nayyar Hussain 1982 SCMR 549.
6. In this case there is no prayer made in the writ petition for setting aside of the allotment order dated 23-1-1973, made in favour of the petitioner Professor Muhammad Usman and hence, the High Court was not justified in setting aside the said allotment suo motu by its impugned order.
7. The result is that this petition for leave is; converted into appeal and allowed, the order of the High Court dated 6-4-1988 to the extent that it has declared the allotment dated 23-1-1973 made in favour of Professor Muhammad Usma n to be without lawful authority, is set aside and it is declared that the said order of allotment dated 23-1-1973 made in favour of Professor Muhammad Usman is valid, legal and subsisting. The parties are left to bear their own costs.