JUDGMENT SH. RIAZ AHMAD, CJ. - The dispute in this case pertains to the property bearing No. S-36- R-31 situated at Railway Road, Gawalmandi, Lahore. It is submitted that by operation under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, this property was transferred in the name of Sajjadi Begum, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and a PTO was also issued on 29th of July 1960. Towards the payment of price of this property, Mst. Sajjadi Begum entered into agreement of association on 2nd of May, 1961 and tendered compensation books for adjustments against the price. The deed of association was executed and resultantly, verification of compensation books took place and in the course of scrutiny, it was found that a competition book was not genuine. Accordingly, notices were issued and thereafter Sajjadi Begum filed an other deed of association and tendered three other compensation books and during the scrutiny thereof, these were also found to be bogus. The Department thus issued notice to Sajjadi Begum to pay the price but surprisingly Sajjadi Begum in her life-time did not enter appearance and, therefore, ex parte order was passed and the property was resumed on 22.11.1967.
2. The petitioner assailed the aforesaid order of resumption in this Court earlier and thus Sajjadi Begum was afforded an opportunity to pay the ' price hut despite that, no price was paid by her.
3. The premises were rented out by the successors in-interest of Sajjadi Begum to a bank and they are regularly receiving the rent.
4. The resumption order of the property has been challenged by way of present writ petition and in support thereof, Mr. Qadeer Ahmad Siddiqui, the leaned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the agreement of association was accepted, therefore, the same should be treated as valid and it will be deemed that the payment has been made. I am afraid, the contention is devoid of force because the agreement of association was accepted to facilitate the petitioner to pay the price by submitting the deed of compensation of other claimants who could also be compensated.
The mere acceptance of the agreement of association is not the proof that price of the property had been paid. Therefore, the contention is repelled. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Department arose from its slumber after 20 years and after such a long time, no action can be taken and in fact price of the property had been paid and the Department is unnecessarily dragging the petitioner. The contention is factually incorrect. Time and again, notices were sent to Sajjadi Begum directing her to pay the price of the property but despite that no step was taken towards the payment of the price. In this view of the matter, the petitioners cannot be allowed to take the premium of their on. Indolence.
5. Considering the case from all angles and after hearing the parties at length, I am of the view that resumption order had been passed with lawful authority and jurisdiction. Hence the order impugned is not open to exception and the writ petition is dismissed.
Parties are left to bear their on. Costs.