This judgment will dispose of eight regular second appeals (630, 631, 632, 633, 706, 707, 708 and 709 of 1969) as the question of law involved in all these appeals is one and the same and as all these appeals were disposed of by the learned District Judge, Sargodha, by one consolidated judgment dated 2-5-1969. The appellants had filed separate suits against Thal Development Authority and the Province of West Pakistan praying for grant of permanent injunctions. Their suits were decreed but in appeal the learned District Judge, set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial Court and accepting the appeals dismissed the suits.
2. The appellants-plaintiffs were given their respective lot of land as compensation in lieu of land acquired from them. The land so given to them by the Thal Development Authority was Government land placed at its disposal for management and development purposes. The land originally belonging to the appellants was acquired by the Government of the Punjab vide notification No.1514/TH, dated 13th July, 1953, in order to provide shelterbelts alongwith the channel by the T.DA. The case of the plaintiffs was that the land in suit was given to them in exchange for the said acquired land under resolution No.13 dated 24th August, 1955, and the award dated 19-9- 1955, and they had continued in possession of the same as owners and they are entitled to hold the suits land as owners thereof and the defendants have no right to interfere in their ownership and possession. The defendants-respondents resisted the suits on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits; that the suits land was not given in exchange to them and the plaintiffs are trespassers and that even if the land in suits was given in exchange the Thal Development Authority was not competent to make the said transfers.
3. Before the learned District Judge it was not disputed that the appellants were the persons who were affected by the land acquisition and also that they received no cash compensation so far.
Even possession over the land in dispute of the appellants-plaintiffs was not denied though it was asserted that the said possession was wrongful. The learned District Judge holding that even if the transfer of property from T.D.A. had been proved it will not create any right in them because the land belonged to Government. Mainly for the aforesaid reason and for other reasons recorded in the impugned judgment dated 2-5-1969 the appeals were accepted and the suits were dismissed which led to the filing of the present second appeals.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that another land owner similarly situated challenged the order of the learned District Judge passed in his case in RSA 145-62 and a learned Judge of this Court accepted the said appeal vide judgment and decree dated 1-2-1967 and holding that the T.DA. was debarred from resiling its own commitment towards the appellant and the latter was entitled to permanent injunction against the Authority restraining it from interfering in his possession, decreed the suit to that -extent. As regards the Government of the Punjab, it was observed in the said judgment that the Government was not bound by the unauthorised act of the Authority. So the suit against the Government was dismissed. Learned counsel for the appellants further placed reliance on judgment dated 26-1-1991 of the Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.162 of.1985. In this case Alam Sher and. others whose land was also acquired under the same notification and who were also granted land in lieu of the acquired land by the Thal Development Authority were allowed to retain the land on payment of difference in price according to the offer made by the said appellants in view of the decision of the Board of Revenue conveyed vide memo dated 15-11-1976. A perusal of the judgment dated 26-1-1991 shows that memo No.622-76/4460/TH II dated 15-11-1976 was issued by the Board of Revenue Punjab directing that the land in dispute be allowed to remain with M/s. Alam Sher and others provided they agree to pay the difference of price between the value of State land presently with them and compensation amount awarded to them for the land acquired from them. It is also contained in the said memo that the value of state land with them in this case shall be assessed at the rates prevailing at the time of their taking over its possession and in case they neither shift to other TDA land nor agree to pay such difference in price they may be ejected and the land disposed of under the relevant rules/policy. Before the matter could be finalised another memo dated 4-10-1982, which reads as follows, was issued: "After the due consideration of the facts of the case, it has been decided that as the petitioners have already lost their case from Civil Court/High Court, the land may, therefore, be resumed forthwith and the petitioners be directed to collect compensation of land acquired from them which is already lying under head Revenue Deposit with Khushab Treasury."
This memo. was then challenged In this Court in Constitutional jurisdiction (W.P.4595-82). This petition was, however, dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court vide order dated 28th December, 1982. The said party then approached the Supreme Court and leave to appeal was granted and the aforesaid judgment dated 26th January, 1991, was passed.
5. The observations recorded by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court in the judgment dated 26-1-1991, relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants read as follows:-- "Taking the last bit of the argument it is to be noticed that under the Delegation of Powers Board of Revenue is the authority to deal with State land. It was the Board of Revenue which had allowed the appellant vide Memo. referred to above dated 15-11-1976 to retain the land on .payment of difference of the price. The question is whether the Board of Revenue can resile? It has done so because of the High Court order. But a perusal thereof and the extracts quoted above will show that though no mandatory injunction was issued against the Government, but by no means it was disallowed to exercise its own authority which it did in issuing the aforementioned Memo. dated f5- 11-1976. Therefore the subsequent Memorandums impugned were the result of misconception.
Hence, these are declared to be without lawful authority. The appellant may be charged the difference in price according to his offer recorded above."
It is apparent from the above that the decision of the Board of Revenue conveyed vide memo dated 15-11-76 was held to be operative. This decision of the Board of Revenue in case of Alam Sher and others would equally operate in the case of other parties similarly placed. This Court as early as on 1-2-1967 had already held in a similar case that the T.DA. was debarred from resiling its own commitment towards the said appellant and that the latter was entitled to permanent injunction against the Authority restraining it from interfering in his possession. This observation equally applies to the present appellants and they are also entitled to permanent injunction against the Authority restraining A it from interfering in their possession. As regards the Government they can avail of the decision of the Board of Revenue conveyed vide memo dated 15-11-1976, as no discriminatory treatment can be meted out to persons/parties similarly situated. The appellants are prepared to pay at the rate of Rs.2,500 per acre in spite of the fact that in the memo dated 15- 11-1976 they are liable to pay at the rate prevailing in 1955.
6. For the reasons given above the judgments and decrees dated 2-5-1969 passed by the learned District Judge in each of these appeals are set aside; the decrees of the learned trial Court in favour of the appellants-plaintiffs are restored with the modification that the appellants shall be charged the difference in price according to their afore-noted offer. These appeals are allowed accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own costs.