' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment dated 30-1-2002 of the Lahore High Court by which ICA filed by the petitioners against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chamber of the said Court dated 18-9-1990 through which writ petition filed by them was dismissed, has been dismissed.
2. The land in dispute belonged to one Haji Ahmed Din predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners who got a scheme sanctioned about this land on 23-6-1943 from the Municipal Corporation in which land measuring 6 Kanals, 12 Marlas and 110 sq. Ft. Now in dispute was left for use as Public Park.
3. Subsequently, the petitioners as successors of Haji Ahmed Din made an application to the Municipal Corporation for amendment of the scheme whereby they wanted to take back the said land left. For Public Park and disposed of the same as owners thereof.
4. It appears that this application was processed at the level of Municipal Corporation and at one point of time, it was suggested by the Municipal Corporation that out of the said land measuring 6 Kanals, 12 Marlas and 110 sq.Ft., 50% may be used for Public Park and the remaining 50% restored to the petitioners. Since the original scheme was sanctioned by the Provincial Government, therefore; this proposed amendment also required sanction by the Provincial Government therefore, the same was placed before the Provincial Government for approval. On 19-4-1979, the Provincial Government rejected the said proposal. The petitioners made representation against the same which after having been considered by the Provincial Government was rejected on'27-9-1984 and intimation given to the petitioners. It appears that during the pendency of the process of the proposed amendment in the scheme, the petitioners had been selling the land out of 50% of the said land left for Public Park which was proposed to be restored to them. The purchasers filed suit before the Civil Court alleging that they had purchased the said land from the legal heirs of Haji Ahmed Din, therefore, the Corporation should be restrained from using the same for Public Park.
The suit was dismissed. Appeal also failed. Revision petition filed by the said purchasers was also dismissed with the following observations;-- ' It may be noticed that the private housing scheme was sanctioned by the Provincial Government and as such any modification in the said Scheme could not take place without the approval of the Provincial Government. So even if it is assumed that the Administrator, Lahore Municipal Corporation had recommended to the Provincial Government to modify the Scheme on the lines stated by the petitioners no modification in the scheme could take place without the acceptance of the recommendation by the Provincial Government. The petitioners' contention that the open space reserved for children park in the Scheme had not vested in the Lahore Municipal Corporation as no compensation for the land had been paid by the Lahore Municipal Corporation to the owner of the land does not merit consideration and in any case does not improve petitioners' case because the land reserved for children park could not be disposed of by the person or his successors-in-interest, who got the Housing Scheme sanctioned by the Provincial Government.
The sale of a part of the suit-land in favour of the petitioners could not confer any legal title on them as the vendors were not entitled to deal with the land reserved for children park...."
5. Civil petition for leave to appeal filed by the said purchasers before this Court was however, withdrawn on 23-11-1988, meaning thereby that the said judgment had attained finality.
6. Another suit was filed by the said purchasers for permanent injunction in which they too failed up to the High Court and the same position as was held in the above mentioned reproduced portion of the judgment passed in the revision petition was maintained.
7. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No,1222 of 1981 before the High Court against the order of the Provincial Government dated 19-4-1979 which was withdrawn on 30-3-1982 with permission to file a civil suit. No civil suit was filed whereas the petitioners filed Writ Petition No,4525 of 1984 in the year 1984 against the same order dated 19-4-1979 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court through judgment dated 18-9-1990 against which ICA filed by them has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 30-1-2002 against which leave is sought.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that since the title and ownership in the land measuring 6 Kanals, 12 Marlas and 110 sq.Ft, was not transferred to the Municipal Corporation and the same continued to vest in the original owner, and after his death in his legal heirs, therefore, the Municipal Corporation had no authority or for that matter the Provincial Government was not legally justified not to sanction or to give approval to the amendment in the scheme whereby the title in the 50% land reserved for the said park was proposed to be transferred to the Municipal Corporation in consideration of the remaining 50% to be restored to the petitioners.
9. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has dealt with this aspect of the case in the following manner:-- "8. Even otherwise on merits, the petitioners do not have any case. Admittedly, the land was reserved for public purpose as a condition for sanction of the Scheme in the year 1943. On no rational basis could the petitioners subsequently claim title to a part of this land. There was neither any occasion nor any reason allowing their application. The petitioners had no vested right in the land in question. They were given full hearing by the Deputy Secretary concerned before whom they were represented by their counsel. There is no merit also in the contention of the learned counsel that the judgment of this Court has been misconstrued."
10. The reasons given by the learned Single Judge of the High Court do not suffer from any legal infirmity, for private person having got the scheme framed by the Municipal Corporation about his private land and selling the plots carved out to the purchasers at high rates of consideration was sufficient consideration and compensation to the owners thereof, for reserving land measuring 6 Kanals, 12 Marlas and 110 sq.Ft. For Public Park. The petitioners were not entitled to any further compensation in respect thereof. The purchasers of the plots in the developed scheme were given the understanding that the said land would be available for Public Park for their children, therefore, they purchased the plots, as such, the Provincial Government was legally justified not to approve or sanction the amendment in the scheme. It was rightly held that apart from the fact that in the previous two above mentioned suits in which judgments had been passed, that no amendment in the scheme could be made, the writ petition also suffered from laches.
11. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, we see no force in this petition as the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal infirmity, therefore, this petition is hereby dismissed and leave refused.