' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---The petitioner Ahbab Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 23-9- 1999 whereby the acquisition proceedings in respect of land acquired by the petitioner and all notifications issued in this behalf were declared ultra vires, illegal, without jurisdiction and mala fide.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to the institution of this petition are that on 12-9-1970 the petitioner society applied to the Collector, Lahore for acquisition of land in Hanjerwal and Niaz Baig villages, Tehsil Lahore for the establishment of boys and girls college in collaboration with the Qur'anic Education Society and a small township appurtenant and subservient to these institutions. On 16- 2-1971, in notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called the Act) was issued in respect of land measuring 213 Kanals, 17 Marlas for public purpose and through a corrigendum notification dated 4-8-1971 the area was reduced to 209 Kanals, 7 Marlas. On 12-11- 1971 through another corrigendum notification the purpose of the acquisition was shown to be 'company purpose' as against 'public purpose'. On 25-1-1972 a notification under section 5 of the Act was issued inviting objections to the acquisition. The contesting respondents 1--9 did not raise any objection to the issuance of the aforesaid notification. In the meanwhile, Martial Law Regulation 118 was issued on 1-4-1972 under which it was no long possible to establish privately-managed schools and colleges and, therefore, on 29-3-1973 the object of the acquisition was changed and it was meant for the establishment of a Qur'anic Research Centre and a residential colony. On 28-7- 1973, an agreement was signed between the petitioner-society and the Provincial Government followed by a notification dated 16-10-1973 under section 6 of the Act. On 18-3-1974 an award was also announced and a total sum of Rs.415,314.50 was demanded and deposited by the petitioner- society and after compliance of the other formalities the award was finally announced on 10-5- 1975 under section 11 of the Act.
3. In the meanwhile, the validity of the acquisition proceedings was challenged by one Noor Muhammad through Writ Petition No.2343 of 1974. Later on, Sadiq Hussain Qureshi, Ex- Governor/Chief Minister, Punjab also moved an application on 19-6-1975 objecting to the acquisition. On this application certain directions were issued by the Board of Revenue under which the Commissioner, Lahore Division, exercising powers under section 48 of the Act, cancelled all the notifications vide order dated 9-7-1975. Writ Petition 2343 of 1974 filed by Noor Muhammad was withdrawn having become infructuous. The petitioner-society through Writ Petition No.2746 of 1975 challenged the order of the Commissioner dated 9-7-1975 cancelling the acquisition proceedings.
This petition was accepted by the High Court vide judgment dated 30-10-1977. Sadiq Hussain Qureshi and others assailed the aforesaid order through C.P.L.A. No.678 of 1977 while the respondents 1-9 moved C.P.L.A. No.11 of 1978. Both these petitions were dismissed and the leave to appeal was refused by this Court vide order dated 21-6-1978. In compliance with the orders of the High Court dated 30-10-1977 the Commissioner, Lahore Division, rescinded the earlier notification dated 9-7-1977 vide notification dated 19-11-1977 published on 30-11-1977. The notification 19-11-1977 restoring the acquisition was challenged by the respondents 1--9 through Writ Petition No.4485 of 1978. On 16-9-1978 besides filing the writ petition, the respondents 1--9 also made an application under section 48 of the Act praying that the land acquired for the petitioner-society be cancelled under section 40 of the Act. This application was dismissed on 24-9-1978. In the meantime during the period between 27-9-1978 to 16-10-1978 the petitioner-society was delivered possession of the land thus acquired. Writ Petition No.4665 of 1978 was heard by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, which was allowed and the acquisition proceedings were declared to be illegal and ultra vires vide orders impugned.
4. In support of this petition, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after completion of the acquisition proceedings finally the award under section 11 of the Act was announced on 10-5- f975 and on 19-6-1975 Sadiq Hussain Qureshi had stepped in and on account of the influence then exercised by Sadiq Hussain Qureshi, the Commissioner cancelled the acquisition. The said order was challenged by the petitioner-society through Writ Petition No.2746 of 1975, which was allowed and thereafter an agreement was executed between the petitioner- society and the Provincial Government followed by issuance of notifications under sections 6 and 63 of the Act. It is thus contended that the need of the society stood conclusively proved for company purposes. Sadiq Hussain Qureshi and the contesting respondents 1--9 failed in all their attempts to thwart the acquisition. Even this Court refused to grant leave to appeal. It was thus contended that the judgment in Writ Petition No.2746 of 1975 became final and binding upon the parties and could not have been subsequently interfered with by the High Court through orders impugned. It was further contended that this important aspect was totally ignored by the High Court while delivering the judgment impugned.
5. It is also contended by the learned counsel that in view of the decision in Writ Petition No.2746 of 1975 the matter could not be re-agitated by the contesting respondents. In this behalf the learned counsel drew our attention to a para. Of the judgment delivered in Writ Petition No.2746 of 1975 to the following effect:--- "The original owners never challenged 'the notification under section 6 and, in fact, when the matter was referred to the Collector for acquiring the land and the award was announced, the original owner did not feel aggrieved by the said award because no relief under section 18 of the Act was demanded."
' Similarly, the learned counsel also drew our attention to the operative part of the judgment delivered by this Court while refusing to grant leave to appeal, which is as follows:--- "As regards Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.11 of 1978, it need not detain us. The 47 petitioners therein are the landholders whose land was acquired for the respondent-Society. It is conceded before us that none of them had objected to the acquisition proceedings nor indeed had anyone of them sought a reference to the Civil Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In these circumstances, their petition in the High Court was wholly incompetent and was rightly dismissed."
' The learned counsel thus argued that the matter was hit by the principle of res judicata qua the respondents 1--9 and therefore the High Court had fallen into error by overlooking this fact. The learned counsel also argued that at one time this land was included in the acquisition proceedings for Johar Town and the petitioner-society after depositing additional amount of Rs.5,00,000 got this land released. It was also pointed out that no objection was ever raised by the contesting respondents to the acquisition and, therefore, they were not competent to have agitated the matter through a writ petition. It was also contended that the transaction had become 'closed and past' and the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the acquisition. Serious objections were raised to the observation of the High Court whereby it held that under Rule 47 of the Cooperative Societies Rules, the petitioner was under a legal disability to undertake such venture. It was further argued that the findings of the High Court that the need of the petitioner- society was not genuine are erroneous.
6. After hearing the learned counsel at length, we grant leave to appeal to the petitioner-society to examine the validity of the acquisition proceedings. The operation of the judgment impugned in the meanwhile is stayed.