' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been preferred against the judgment, dated 19-11-2002 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Writ Petition No,1147 of 2001 wherein the petitioners sought direction for demarcation of land subject-matter of the litigation.
2. Messrs Wattan Cotton Mills Limited was established on the land measuring 96 Kanals, 9 Marlas acquired by the Government of Punjab in the revenue estate of Chuhar Harpal, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi. Subsequent to the establishment of mills, Government of Punjab on the request of the owner of the mills, acquired another area of 76 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land for construction of a labour colony for the mills but no such labour colony was constructed and Government of Punjab vide notification, dated 18-11-1986 resumed the land. Messrs Wattan Cotton Mills committed default in payment of income-tax whereupon the Income-tax Department initiated proceedings against the mills and in consequence thereto assets and properties of the Mills including the land, were put to auction which were purchased by Messrs Sattar Textile Mills Limited. However, out of total area of land measuring 96 Kanals, 9 Marlas belonging to mills, an area measuring 44 Kanals, 9 Marlas being in possession of Wattan Woolen Mills, a sister concern of Wattan Cotton Mills, therefore, in lieu thereof on the request of Income-tax Department, the Government of Punjab agreed to hand over the possession of 44 Kanals and 9 Marlas of land to the auction-purchaser from the resumed land.
The two sister Companies being aggrieved of the above arrangement, invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, at Rawalpindi Bench, in the matter and ultimately the dispute was finally settled by this Court in Civil Appeals Nos.1128 and 1129 of 1997, decided by this Court vide judgment, dated 1-12-1998, The operative part of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-- ' "The learned counsel for Messrs Wattan Cotton Mills Ltd., Messrs Wattan Woollen Mills Ltd. And Messrs Sattar Textile Mills Ltd., jointly stated before us that they would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the Government of Punjab to hand over 44 Kanals, 9 Marlas of land out of the remaining land available with them. The Punjab Government has all along shown its willingness to hand over 44 Kanals, 9 Marlas of land to the purchaser Messrs Sattar Textile Mills Ltd., out of 76 Kanals of land which was acquired for the purpose of construction of. Labour colony and which was later resumed by the Punjab Government. We, accordingly, modify the order passed by the High Court to the extent that out of the remaining 65 Kanals of land which is still vesting with the Punjab Government Messrs Sattar Textile Mills Ltd., be given 44 Kanals, 9 Marlas of land. The two appeals are disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs."
3. Prior to the disposal of above appeal, these two Companies filed a civil suit wherein the notification, dated 18-11-1986 relating to the resumption of the land by the Government of Punjab was challenged. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment, dated 5-7-1994 and appeal preferred by them against the dismissal of suit also met the same fate. However, in the civil revision filed by them in the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench, against the concurrent dismissal of suit, a learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 10-3-1996 by reversing the findings of the two Courts on the pivotal questions involved in the suit held that the findings of the two Courts on the privotal question involved in the suit held that the land on resumption, would be reverted to the original owners and could not be given to Messrs Sattar Textile Mills. The learned Judge while disposing of an application under Order 1 rule 10, C.P.C. Filed by the original landowners for impleading them as party, in civil revision made certain observations regarding their rights in the resumed land. In the light of the said observations the said land-owners filed separate writ petitions in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, seeking direction for return of the resumed land to them and a learned Single Judge disposed of all these petitions through a consolidated judgment, dated 21-9-1999 passed in Writ Petition No,35 of 1999. The operative part of the judgment is read as under:-- ' "In the facts and circumstances of the present case, as there is already the order of the Board of Revenue to return the land to the original owners, thus, after complying with the orders of the Honourable Supreme Court in adjusting the land to Messrs Sattar Textile Mills and Muhammad Bashir Malik the remaining land should be given to the petitioners or any other landowner who has already applied to the Board of Revenue and is also in possession thereof. It may be pertinent to state here that surplus land may not be fully available to adjust the claim of each claimant according to the land acquired from him, consequently, the Board of Revenue is directed to distribute the land proportionately considering the claims and also hearing the parties concerned.
It may also be mentioned that the price for the retransfer of the land shall be according to the determination of the District Price Committee as mentioned by the learned A.A.-G. It may also be pertinent to state that during the course of these petitions a local commission was appointed who has submitted his report. The Board of Revenue may consider if the report be of some value in determining the entitlement of the parties before me."
4. The present petitioners are successors-in-interest of some of the original owners of the land which was acquired by the Government of Punjab for construction of labour colony. The petitioners being in physical possession of a portion of the resumed land, filed a Constitution Petition bearing No,1147 of 2001 in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench wherein they sought direction to the Revenue Authorities for demarcation of the land given to Messrs Sattar Textile Mills to protect their possession on a part of the resumed land. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge with the observation that interference in the matter would amount to nullify the judgment of Supreme, Court in C.As. Nos.1128 and 1129 of 1997.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners being successors-in- interest of the original owner were holding the possession of the land of their share' before its acquisition and after resumption of the land by the Government of Punjab they would be entitled to retain possession of land with its title. The learned counsel submitted that the right of ownership of the petitioners after resumption of land was also acknowledged by the Board of Revenue which was later affirmed by the High Court in its judgment, dated 10-3-1996 passed in the civil revision and yet in a subsequent judgment, dated 21-9-1999 passed in Writ Petition 35. Of 1999 but the Revenue Authorities have taken no steps for implementation of the order of the Board of Revenue and the judgments of the High Court, Learned counsel, however, submitted that the petitioners were not aggrieved of the settlement arrived at between the parties in C.As. Nos.1128 and 1129 of 1997 and with the exclusion of an area of 44 Kanals, 9 Marla and 11 Kanals given to Messrs Sattar Textile Mills and one Allah Ditta they would be entitled to retain possession of remaining land as owners, therefore, the demarcation of the land was necessary to protect their rights in the land.
6. The learned counsel representing Sattar Textile Mills on the other hand, has raised serious objection to the maintainability of writ petition on the ground that after final settlement of the matter in C.As. Nos.1128 and 1129 of 1997 before this Court, the same was being reopened before the High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction on the pretext of demarcation of land and factually the petitioners with a view to frustrate the judgment of this Court, started litigation to prolong their unauthorized possession on the land: owned by Messrs Sattar Textile Mills.
7. The Government of Punjab on resumption of land treating it as Government property did not return the same to the original owners, and thus they would not be the necessary party in the proceedings, which culminated in the two civil appeals disposed of by this Court vide judgment, dated 1-12-1998 and consequently they would have no locus standi to question the validity of settlement made by the parties in C.As. Nos.1128 and 1129 of 1997 before this Court. Subsequently, the petitioners taking benefit.Of the judgments of the High Court referred to above and the order of the Board of Revenue sought the demarcation of the land with the intervention of High Court without raising any objection to the settlement made by the Government of Punjab with Messrs Sattar Textile Mills. Learned counsel for the petitioners when confronted that the judgments of the High Court and order of Board of Revenue could not be implemented in departure to the judgment of this Court in C.As. Nos.1128 and 1129 of 1997 effecting the rights of parties in the said appeals and the original owner could not assert their title in the land subject-matter of dispute in the above appeals, he submitted that the petitioners without disputing the rights of the respondents in the land, were seeking demarcation of the land to avoid any threat to their title and possession. We have not been able to understand that how the High Court in the given situation could proceed in the, matter in conflict to the judgment of this Court and permit re-opening of the past and closed transactions. The learned counsel conceded before us that the matter relating to the demarcation of land was never in issue either before the Revenue Authorities or any Court at any stage and the writ petition was filed for the reason that Revenue Authorities would not be prepared to accept their demand of demarcation of land without the intervention of the Court. We are afraid, the interference of the High Court in the matter would amount to allowing use of remedy of writ petition as a mischief against the State functionaries to compel them to act and proceed against the mandate of law. We, therefore, without taking any exception to the judgment impugned, dismiss this petition. Leave is refused.