' This order shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.1170 of 1990, 778 of. 1990, 1171 of 1990, 1172 of 1990, 1173 of 1990, 1174 of 1990 and 1175 of 1990, in which similar questions fall for determination.
2. The petitioners in all these petitions purchased various parcels of land from Mst. Inayat Begum widow of Arshad Ali between 13th of March, 1974 to 30th of August, 1974, through registered deed of sale. This land formed part of a Development Scheme of the 'Lahore Development. Authority known.
As 1,600 Acres Scheme Phase-II, I.Ahore. After the purchase of the land, the petitioners approached respondent No,1 for the payment of compensation'and exemption. The Land Acquisition Collector, however, referred the question of entitlement of the petitioners for adjudication under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 to the L.DA. Tribunal constituted under the said Act. By means of a common order dated 5th of August, 1982, the Tribunal came to the conclusion. That the petitioners were not entitled to receive any compensation and, therefore, their claims were rejected in toto.
This order of the Tribunal has been assailed by filing this constitutional petition.
3. Mian Nisar Ahmad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, apart from raising certain objections as to the competence of the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the dispute, has mainly contended that the finding of the Tribunal that Mst. Inayat Begum had no title left in the land which she could pass on to the petitioners, is based upon misreading of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court dated 28th February, 1974.
4. In order to appreciate this contention of the learned counsel, it is necessary to recapitulate briefly the facts forming background of this dispute. Undisputedly, the land measuring 69 Kanals 18 Marlas comprised in Khata No,80 of village Bhekewal, Tehsil and District Lahore was originally owned by Malik Kalu Khan, predecessor in interest of respondents Nos.8, 10 to 16, and his brother Arshad Khan, the husband of Mst. Inayat Begum, who died issueless. On the death of Arshad Khan, his share in the land was mutated in the name of Mst. Inayat Begum under the Customary Law as life estate. She, however, alienated 23 Kanals 8 Marlas from this Khata. This sale was preempted by Malik Kalu Khan, the predecessor in interest of respondents Nos.10 to 16, who, as mentioned above, was brother of Arshad deceased.
5. On 3rd of October, 1972, Mst. Inayat Begum filed a suit against Kalu' Khan for a declaration that she was co-owner in equal share with him in the land measuring 69 Kanals 18 Marlas. This suit was decided by Mr. Farman Ali Khan, Civil Judge, Lahore, on 28th of February, 1974. Mst. Inayat Begum was held to be entitled to 1/8th share in the inheritance as widow of her husband, Muhammad Arshad Khan, under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal that this 1/8 share had been granted to Mst. Inayat Begum over and above the land sold by her was repelled by the Tribunal.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the same argument before this Court but ft cannot be accepted for various reasons. It is clear from the perusal of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court dated 28th of February, 1974, that Mst. Lnayat Begum was held to be entitled to 1/8th share in the estate of her husband as a Muslim widow under the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962. Admittedly Muhammad Arshad Khan was the owner to the extent of one-half in Khata measuring 69 Kanals 18 Marlas. His share came to 34 Kanals 19 Marlas, out of which share of Mst. Inayat Begum 1/8 would be 4 Kanals 5 Marlas. It was, however, pointed out by the learned counsel that Mst Inayat Begum was an issueless widow, her share be 1/4, i,e. S Kanals 10 Marlas. As already noticed, ,it is an admitted fact that Mst. Inayat Begum had already sold 23 Kanals 8 Marlas, out of the estate of her husband which is much excess of her share. That being so, no valid exception can be taken to the view formed by the L.D.A. Tribunal that the petitioners who are transferees from Mst. Inayat Begum did not acquire any right in the property and as such, they were not entitled to any compensation.
' For the reasons aforesaid, there is no force in these petitions which are dismissed in limine.