' AJMAL MIAN, J.---By this common order we intend to dispose of the above petitions. They are directed against a common order dated 26-5-1996 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision Nos.1500 to 1507 of 1996, filed by the petitioners against the judgment dated 14-5-1996 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeals Nos.42 to 49 recalling the ad interim order of the trial Court dated 25-6-1995, dismissing the same by maintaining the above appellate order.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioners have allegedly purchased small pieces of land out of land bearing Khasra No,3318/448, situated in Mauza Bakhowal, Tehsil and District Lahore. According to the averment in the plaint, they have raised pacca construction in the form of rooms/houses. Since the respondents had threatened to demolish the above structures and to dispossess the same on the ground that the land in possession of the petitioners was acquired by the L.D.A. Under the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners filed suits in the Court of Civil Judge, 1st Class, Lahore. Alongwith the plaints, they filed applications for interim injunction, which were allowed for the following reasons:- - "4. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard. Record perused. From the letter dated 11-12-1993 issued by the Director Estate Management, L.D.A., it is clear that the plaintiff is in possession of the property in dispute and he has also raised construction after obtaining the permission from the defendant. Through the said letter, the plaintiff was also advised to contact the Director Land Development, L.D.A. And Director Town Planning, L.D.A. For the adjustment of area and to make payment of development charges under the rules, meaning thereby, that the matter with regard to adjustment/exemption is under process. In view of above, the plaintiff has an arguable case and if she is dispossessed, she will suffer irreparable loss. Balance of convenience also leans in her favour as she has sale-deed in her favour. Accordingly, the application for grant of temporary injunction is hereby accepted."
' Against the above order, the L.D.A. Filed aforesaid miscellaneous appeals. The same were allowed for the following reasons:-- "It is also an admitted position that award in favour of the vendors of the present plaintiff- respondent in this respect were announced on 13-3-1975 and 10-5-1980. The similar question has been authoritatively resolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Petition No,913 of 1983 titled as Muhammad Khalid etc. v. Land Acquisition Collector (supra). I reproduced the relevant portion of the judgment for ready reference.
"Learned counsel had to admit that the alleged purchase by the petitioners which is the basis of their claim was made in June 1977, while notification under section 13 was also issued prior to the alleged purchase in December 1976. That being so in so far as the facts and merits of the case are concerned the petitioners claim regarding exemption could not have been allowed."
' In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the plaintiff-respondent has no claim in the property and thus no prima facie case in their favour and any order or reports in their favour by the officials of L.D.A. Cannot change this legal position. I, therefore, reverse impugned findings and orders of the learned trial Judge and accept the present appeals. Resultantly the applications for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent are hereby dismissed. However, with no order as to cost. File be consigned to record and record be remitted forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Judge on 22-5-1996."
' After that the petitioners filed aforesaid civil revisions without any success. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petitions for leave to appeal.
3. We have ordered for issuance of notices to the respondents on 15-1-1997 for today as we intended to dispose of the matters finally for the reason that the petitions are directed against interlocutory orders. However, in spite of service of the notice, the respondents have not turned up.
4. In support of the above petitions Messrs Muhammad Hanif Niazi and Awan Muhammad Hanif, learned counsel for the petitioners, have contended as follows:--
(i) That since the possession of the disputed portions of the land remain with the petitioners, the title to the same had not passed in favour of L.D.A. Upon giving of the award in 1976 and, therefore, the sale transactions in favour of the petitioners in 1977 cannot be said to be void. Reliance has been placed by them on the Full Bench case of the Patna High Court in the case of State of Bihar, Appellant v. Dr. G.H. Grant and another, Respondents (AIR 1960 Patna 382);
(ii) That even otherwise it is the policy of the L.D.A. To exclude the portions of the land from the acquisition whereon permanent structures have been raised by the private parties and that the petitioners' application for exemption of the portions of the land in dispute from acquisition is pending adjudication before the L.D.A. Tribunal and hence it will be just and proper not to demolish the structures till the time the above decision is taken.
5. We are inclined to convert the above petitions into appeals. The same are converted into appeals and disposed of by directing that both the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of portions of the land in dispute in possession of the petitioners till the disposal of the suits as the points urged by the petitioners require consideration. The Trial Court shall expedite the disposal of the suits so that final legal position may emerge after the conclusion of the suits. The above petitions stand disposed of as appeals in the above terms.