AMIR ALAM KHAN, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Intra Court Appeals Nos, 559, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564 and 565 of 1991 for they arise out of a consolidated order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court and involve common controversy.
2. The Intra-Court Appeals aforenoted are directed against the order dated 2-7-199.1 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ petitions Nos, 778, 1170, 1171, 1172, 1173, 1174 and 1175 of 1990 whereby the said writ petitions were dismissed in limine.
3. The facts leading to these appeals are that the land measuring 69 Kanals, 18 Marlas comprised of Khata No,80 of village Bhikewal, Tehsil and District Lahore, was originally jointly owned by Malik Arshad Khan and Malik Kalu Khan. Malik Arshad Khan died issueless resultantly share of the land aforenoted i,e, 34 Kanals, 18 Marlas was mutated in the name of his widow Mst. Inayat Begum as limited owner who in turn alienated 23 Kanals, 8 Marlas from the estate of Malik Arshad Khan in favour of some vendees. This sale was pre-empted by Malik Kalu Khan, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos,8 and 10 to 16 who was real brother of Malik Arshad Khan, deceased i,e, late husband of Mst. Inayat Begum. The limited estate of Mst. Inayat Begum was terminated on the promulgation of West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application Act). 1962, and according to the provisions thereof Mst. Inayat: Begum being a childless widow became the owner of V, share of the total estate of late Malik Arshad Khan while the rest was to be reverted to Malik Kalu Khan or his heirs as the case may be. However, Mst. Inayat Begum filed a suit against Malik Kalu Khan on 3- 10-1972 seeking declaration that she was co-owner in equal share with said Malik Kalu Khan in the land measuring 69 Kanals, 18 Marlas. This suit was partially decreed by Mr. Farman Ali Khan, Civil Judge, Lahore, on 28-2-1974 thereby holding that . Mst. Inayat Begum was entitled to 8 Kanals, 15 Marlas from the inheritance of her husband.
4. Mst. Inayat Begum again sold land measuring about 6 Kanals to the various vendees/appellants herein by way of registered sale-deeds executed and concluded between 13th March to 30th August, 1974. Since the land aforenoted formed part of a development scheme of Lahore Development Authority known as 1600 Acres Scheme, Phase-II, Lahore therefore, the purchasers/appellants approached the Lahore Development Authority for payment of compensation and exemption of plots. The Land Acquisition Collector in turn referred the question of entitlement of the said appellants for adjudication to the Tribunal constituted under the Lahore Development Authority Act. The reference was initially dismissed by the Chairman of the L.D.A.
Tribunal vide his order dated 5-8-1982 and aggrieved therefrom the appellants filed writ petitions in this Court which were accepted and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to decide the same afresh after hearing the parties and attending to the various questions involved therein. The Tribunal again rejected the said reference vide its order dated 16-9-1989 thereby holding that the appellants were not entitled to either the compensation or the exemption of plots.
5. The above said order had been assailed in the Constitutional petitions aforenoted, which were dismissed in limine by the learned Single Judge of this Court, hence, these appeals.
6. Admittedly the estate left by Malik Arshad Khan comprised of 34 Kanals, 18 Marlas which was mutated in the name of his widow, namely, Mst. Inayat Begum as limited owner under the Customary Law` and she could only sell the above said, land for legal necessity or the estate inherited by her as limited owner could be terminated either on her death or on her remarriage. In the instant case, the widow proceeded to sell the land measuring 23 Kanals, 8 Marlas from the said estate and the sale was preempted by no other person than the reversioner who was entitled to the estate of late Malik Arshad Khan on the termination of the limited estate. Obviously, the sale was accepted to be for the legal necessity by the said reversioner, therefore, the suit for pre- emption was decreed. Consequently he was denuded of his right of inheritance of the land forming subject-matter of the sale. This decretal of the suit was in the nature of adjustment of the limited estate in favour of the reversioner. The position as such continued till such time that Act V of 1962 was promulgated and the limited estate existing in favour of Mst. Inayat Begum was terminated by operation of law. Section 5 of the said Act provided that on the termination of the limited estate, the widow would be entitled to her Shari share from the said estate. Since she was childless widow, therefore, according to the Sharia, she was entitled to 1/4th of the land. The question which falls for determination is, to the effect whether the sale of 23 Kanals, 8 Marlas of land is taken to be ordinary sale under the general law and is attributable to Mst. Inayat Begum in the manner that she had sold more than her Shari share. The answer is in the negative. The alienation made by Mst. Inayat Begum has been judicially determined to be the adjustment of the limited estate of Mst. Inayat Begum in favour of the reversioner who was left with no right to inherit the subject-matter of the sale and that being so, the learned Single Judge had fallen in error in treating the same as ordinary sale under the general law. There were only two parties to inherit the limited estate i,e, the widow and the reversioner. The reversioner having taken his lot by filing a suit for pre-emption of the sale made by her, the widow continued to enjoy the limited estate till such time that it was terminated by promulgation of Act V of 1962. The discussion aforenoted would show that the land measuring 23 Kanals, 8 Marlas was adjusted in favour of the reversioner or the collateral of the last male holder with the result that Mst. Inayat Begum would be entitled to her Shari share from the total areas which formed her limited estate which comes to 8 Kanals, 10 Marlas. Again the question can be approached from a different angle inasmuch as assuming for the sake of argument, though it is held otherwise, that Mst. Inayat Begum having alienated 23 Kanals, 8 Marlas, there remains about 11 Kanals of land to be distributed among the Shari heirs of the last male holder and calculated in this regard, about three Kanals of land remains unaccounted for which appears to have been acquired by the L.D.A. without paying any compensation to anybody for the collaterals had not opted to contest the entitlement of Mst. Inayat Begum nor the L.D.A. appear to have given any compensation to anybody else. Again the L.D.A. cannot be allowed to acquire the land just for a song. After all, it is a development authority which has to acquire land and pay compensation for the same. The right of reversioner having been judicially determined to be adjustment of the limited estate. Mst. Inayat Begum would be entitled to 114th share from the estate left by Malik Arshad Khan and has been so held by the decree of the Civil Court dated 28-2-1974. The decree passed by the learned civil Court and that too between the parties entitled to inherit the estate left by Malik Arshad Khan was definitely binding for it had determined the entitlement of the parties and the L.D.A. was to act in consequence thereof and the Tribunal constituted under the L.D.A. Act had no jurisdiction to either cancel the decree or to hold that the same was not binding on the Tribunal by simply observing that the L.D.A. was not a party to the suit. The learned Single Judge of this Court also fell in error in observing that Mst. Inayat Begum had already sold more than her Shari share, therefore, she was not entitled to sell the land any further without considering as to whose lot he remaining land was to fall as also without taking note of the fact that the total remaining land had been acquired by the L.D.A. without allowing compensation or exemption in favour of either the reversionary or the widow. The sale concluded by Mst. Inayat Begum in favour of various vendees are lawful and valid, therefore, the appellants are entitled to compensation and exemption of the plots as per policy of the L.D.A.
7. In the circumstances, these appeals are accepted and the order dated 2-7-1991 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court is hereby set aside, resultantly, the order dated 16-9-1989 passed by the Chairman of the Tribunal constituted under the L.D.A. Act is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal .effect. Consequently, the writs as prayed for are issued.