MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.-- Leave to appeal is sought against judgment dated 10.12.1998 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby petitioners' Writ Petition No. 9812 of 1995 was resolved against them with, among others, the following observations: Assistant Administrator Evacuee Trust Property Board Gujranwala filed a reference under Sections 8 and 10(2) of Evacuee Trust Property Board Act, XIII of 1975 Praying that land measuring 92 Kanals, 8 marlas bearing khasra Nos. 1267, 1264, 1263, 1155, 1158-min, 1154, 1300, 1154, 1196, 1254, 1251, 1256, 1236 (old) which were assigned new survey numbers in consolidation proceedings conducted in 1971-72 as 1261, 1263, 1367, 1202, 1273, 1277, 1283, 1209, 1264, 1265, 1274 and 1363 situated in revenue estate Jajoke be declared as evacuee trust property and its allotment/transfer vide RL-II khata No.81/1 dated 14.12.196a in favour of kherati and further sale to Muhammad Ibrahim and Abdul Majeed being fake be cancelled. According to the reference 40 kanals of land stood temporarily allotted to certain respondents. According to Administrator land measuring 747 kanals, 17 marlas as per record of rights for the year 1946-47 was attached with a 'Dharamsala' and thus was an evacuee trust property. After consolidation of holdings was carried out in the revenue estate in the year 197172 the area was increased to 757 kanals, 14 marlas. The respondents were issued notices Ghulam Muhammad respondent No.6 contested the proceedings Habib Khan also filed a written statement where he raised preliminary objections against maintainability of the petition and jurisdiction of the Court. He also challenged that property was not a trust property. He claimed that he was a bona-fide purchaser of land for value Later Habib Khan also dis-associated himself from the proceedings and was proceeded against exparte by order dated 9.3.1989 proceedings were taken to its logical end and the Chairman after hearing the parties who were before him and perusal of the record came to the conclusion that allotment made against khata No.81/1 in RL-II was fabricated because in the whole of register number of "Khatas" were whole numbers and khata No.81/1 was the only instance where sub-number was given and that this 'khata' was entered on the back page of khata No.81/1 while reverse pages of all 'khata' were blank and that officer who confirmed khata No.81/1 had not confirmed any other 'khata' in the whole of the register and proceeded to cancel the allotment and subsequent mutations.
Petitioner during pendency of the proceedings before the Chairman ETB purchased property from sons of Habib Khan namely ljaz Ahmad and Riaz Ahmad Habib Khan was duly served and had contested the proceedings. After acquisition of the interest of Habib Khan in the property, whatever those interests might be the petitioner stepped into shoes of Habib Khan and was bound by the decision rendered by Chairman in the matter. Petitioner derived his title from that of Habib Khan who in turn claimed through khetati allotment of the land in whose favour was found to be bogus.
Obviously kherati had no title to the property and likewise petitioner cannot claim any bona-fide interest in the property either. His predecessor-in-interest whose names existed in the record were duly notified and one of them was duly heard as well and petitioner in these circumstances cannot urge that proceedings were taken behind his back or that he was condemned unheard. If Habib Khan or his sons had left the petitioner in lurch, he could not blame the respondent-Chairman for that."
2. Mr. Ejaz Ahmed Khan, learned AOR appearing in support of this petition has contended that the learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore was in error in not quashing order dated 30.4.1992 of the Chairman 'Evacuee Trust Property Board, arbitrarily holding that the disputed strip of land was Evacuee Trust. The reference before the Chairman ETPB was for determination of the character of the land in dispute and not the legality of its transfer in favour of respondents- Ghulam Muhammad and Khairati. The discussion on merits of allotment in favour of the above- mentioned respondents fell out of the said jurisdiction of the Chairman ETPB. His clients had no knowledge of the pendency of the proceedings before respondent-Chairman ETPB and in the absence of their impleadment as party and/or substitution them in place of their predecessor amounted to condemnation without hearing. The proceedings are rendered coram non judice.
More so, without being served with a notice of the same. The petitioners had no need to know or assume that the title of their predecessor was defective when they purchased the land. The sale in their favour was therefore immune from attack and the learned Judge in Chambers was in error in ignoring the same.
3. Contrarily, Ch. Fazal Hussain, learned ASC appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 caveators and mian Sarfrazul Hasan, learned ASC representing respondent No. 6/caveator have supported the impugned judgment.
4. We have considered the arguments addressed at the Bar and have also perused the available material with the help of the learned counsel for the parties. We find that all the attending .
Circumstances of the cause leading to the passing of unfavourable orders against the petitioners by the Chairman ETPB, Additional Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Minorities Affairs, Camp at Lahore and the High Court were duly considered for coming to the conclusions that land measuring 747-kanals and 17-marlas as per record of rights for the year 1946-47 was attached with a 'Dharamsala' and thus was evacuee trust property. After consolidation of holding was carried out in the revenue estate concerned in the year 1971-72 the area was increased to 757- kanals and 14-marlas. It was during the pendency of proceedings before Chairman ETPB that the petitioners purchased the property from sons of Habib Khan namely ljaz Ahmad and Riaz Ahmad.
Habib Khan was duly served and had contested the proceedings. After having acquired the interest of Habib Khan in the property, whatever those interests might be, the petitioners stepped into shoes of Habib Khan and were bound by the decision rendered by the chairman ETPB in the cause. Moreover, they derived title from Habib Khan who in turn had claimed the same from Kherati the allotment of the land in whose favour was found to be bogus leaving the petitioners to suffer the consequences of lack of title with Kherati and likewise petitioners' claim thereto being sans bona fides. The learned Judge in Chambers was quite right in observing that: "His predecessorsin- interest whose names existed in the record were duly notified and one of them was duly heard as well and petitioner in these circumstances cannot urge that proceedings were taken behind his back or that he was condemned unheard. If Habib Khan or his sons had left the petitioner in lurch, he could not blame the respondent Chairman for that". (underlining is for emphasis).
5. No other point was urged.
6. Resultantly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.