MUHAMMAD ISLAM BHATTI, J. - The facts leading to the filing of this civil revision, briefly stated, are that Muhammad Hanif respondent No. 1 brought a suit No. 306/1 on 20.1.1988 in the Civil Court at Faisalabad alleging that he was running a shop in katchi abadi, Faisalabad which was surveyed according to the instructions of the Provincial Government and it was decided to provide him the alternate place but the present petitioner refused to allot 'himriSny proper place which obliged him to file a writ petition in the High Court. This writ petition was, however, disposed of with a direction that if plot No. 87-D is vacant, priority in allotment would be given to respondent No,
1. He, therefore, approached the petitioner but it transpired that this plot had already been allotted to Shahamand Khan respondent No. 3 while Abdul Hameed was in illegal possession thereof despiite allotment of plot No. 72-C in his favour. Respondent No. 1, therefore, prayed that plot/shop No. 87-D be allotted to him against his survey number and the allotment made in favour of Shahamand Khan be declared as illegal and in-effective against his rights.
2. This suit was hotly contested not only by the F.D.A./petitioner but also by respondents Nos. 2 and
3. Another suit was brought by Abdu) Hameed respondent No. 2 with the same prayer inspite of the fact that plot No. 72-C had been allotted to him. Both these suits were consolidated and were finally dismissed on 22.12.1992 by the learned Trial Court seized of the matter and it was found that respondent No. 3 was the lawful allottee of the plot.
3. Feeling aggrieved by this judgment and decree respondentMuhammad Hanif went up in appeal which was accepted on 18.10.1995. It is against this judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court that F.D.A. Has come up in revision.
4. It has been inter alia claimed by the petitioner that the well- reasoned judgment of the learned Trial Court whereby it was found that the contestants had already been accommodated and alternate allotments had already been made, was upset by the learned Appellate Court, without any cogent reasons therefor and in case the impugned order is allowed to remain in the field the settlement/rehabilitation of the respondents would badly disturb all the allottees of the shops who are already doing their business at the said premises.
5. Respondent No. 1 Muhammad Hanif entered appearance through his counsel Mr. Hamayun Mujahid Bhatti, Advocate for contesting this civil revision. Similarly respondent No. 3 also turned up at the limine stage. It was after hearing the learned counsel and taking into consideration the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that shop No. 74-C had already been allotted to respondent No. 1 and he stood properly accommodated and, he therefore, had no good reason to assert as to why shop No. 87-D had been allotted to Shahamat Khan that this civil revision was admitted to regular hearing. During the pendency of this civil revision Shahamat Khan reportedly died on 27.6.1995. One Raza Muhammad entered appearance on 1.12.1997 and claimed that he had become the owner of shop No,. 87-D after an agreement and Mukhtamama had been executed by Shahamat Khan deceased in his favour and he has thus stepped into his shoes. He was directed to place before the Court the said Mukhtamama and agreement to substantiate his claim. It was finally on 25.3.1998 that one Mst. Anwari Begum made an application (C.M. No. 103-C/1998) that she had purchased the property in dispute (87-D Street No. 212) for a sum of Rs.60,000/- in the year 1990. She annexed with the application copies of the receipt and the agreement as Annexures A and B. She added that she had already constructed a building on the said plot by spending a huge amount and that she had the right to be impleaded and heard. Mr. Ali Akbar Qureshi Advocate, counsel for the revision petitioner did not like to oppose this application or to submit a written reply.
This application was, therefore, accepted and Mst. Anwari Begum was directed to be impleaded as a respondent (respondent No. 4).
6. On 12.5.1998 after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length the Faisalabad Development Authority was directed to look into the case, in view of the directions of this Court issued on 19.4.1987 in I. C.A. No. 152/1987 and the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, which is impugned in this civil revision and then ask the Director Estate Management to prepare a detailed report afresh. The learned counsel for the petitioner has today submitted a report received by him from the Director E.M. Faisalabad Development Authority, Faisalabad and also report dated 21.5.1998 tracing a brief history of the case on the relevant record of the F.D.A. As contained in paras No. 174 and 175 ibid. It has been submitted in para No. 175 that Muhammad Hanif was a nonsurvey holder while the name of Shahamat Khan found mention in the survey list. It was in these circumstances that Muhammad Hanif was allotted a shop on Main Cotton Mills Road inspite of die fact that he was a non-survey holder and could only be allotted a mohallah shop in Allama Iqbal Colony. But instead of receiving the allotment order he insisted for allotment of another shop. Since the allottee Shahamat Khan insisted or obtaining the shop allowed in his name (No. 87-D Cotton Mills Road) and he was the survey holder, the request made by Muhammad Hanif could not be entertained.
7. Mr. Qureshi has submitted with vehemence that it was in these circumstances that the Directorate of Estate Management F.D.A. Had issued allotment order of shop No. 87-D in favour of Shahamat Khan whose successor-in-interest is now Mst. Anwari Begum, having purchased the same by paying a huge amount as sale consideration in 1990.
8. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances as they can be gathered from the record, I find that the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside. This civil revision is, therefore, accepted, impugned judgment and decree are set aside and the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court are upheld and confirmed. The parties shall, however, bear their on costs throughout.