' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J---The Government of Punjab and 4 others seek leave to appeal from order dated 15-4-1992, of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby Writ Petition No, 2676 of 1991, was disposed of in terms of the compromise.
2. The relevant facts in brief giving rise to this petition are, that Khadim Hussain respondent No,1 through auction secured on lease an area of 29-86 acres situate near Rabwah, Tehsil Chiniot, District Jhang, for quarrying of stone. The lease period was to expire on 6-2-1990. He carried out quarrying of stone from that area, and when the learned period was about to expire, he applied for extension of the lease, but his application was rejected on 7-2-1991.
3. On 2-4-1991, he filed Writ Petition in the I chore High Court, claiming that 2/3 of the area leased out to him was unworkable. It was asserted that on his representation the Department allowed him to work on the adjacent area, but later on an effort was made to prevent him from quarrying the stone from the area in dispute. A direction was sought to the licensing authority to extend the period of lease and substitute the area shown in the plan annexed with the petition.
4. On the request of the respondent No,1 the High Court on 7-4-1991, passed order for maintenance of status quo. The petitioners on 13-4-1992, moved application (C.M. 1117/1992) for vacation of the stay order, on the ground that over a year ago the lease period had expired, and the respondent was quarrying the stone from an area, not leased out to him, under the cover of the stay order, issued by the High Court.
5. The writ petition came up for hearing before the High Court, on 15-4-1992 and it was disposed of on the same day, by an order, indicating that the petitioners had agreed to allow the respondent No,1 to work at the site up to 5-9-1996, provided he paid a sum of Rs,77 lacs to the Government according to rules.
6. The petitioners maintain that the compromise incorporated in the order was illegal, unauthorised, collusive and against the mandatory provisions of rules, resulting in colossal financial loss to the Government Exchequer.
7. After hearing Mr. K.M.A. Samdani, learned counsel for petitioners and Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate, learned counsel forrespondent, we grant leave to appeal in this case, to consider, inter alia, whether the compromise evidenced by order dated 15-4-1992, of the High Court, allowing lease for quarrying of stone from an area other than the one previously leased out to the respondent is contrary to law and vitiated by unauthorised interpolation made therein.
8. The appeal shall be expeditiously completed and fixed for hearing at an early date.