' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---This appeal, by leave of this Court, is directed against the judgment, dated 9-10-2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No,41-R of 1996.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Muhammad Qutab-ud-Din respondent No,2 and others filed, through their Special Attorney Nayyar Ahmad, a Mukhbari application, dated 15-2-1974, with the Settlement Authorities, under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement)
Act, 1958 for the cancellation of the bogus allotment of agricultural land situated in villages Sehjpal, Gohawa and Chung Khurd, Tehsil and District. Lahore from the names of Muhammad Munir and 5 others with further request for its allotment to them against their verified claim of outstanding P.I.
Units as displaced persons. By order, dated 31-10-1977 the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), in exercise of powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, cancelled the bogus allotment of the said land. He also orderd for the allotment of the same to the informers 'against their unsatisfied units, if any, after proper checking. The Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, on a reference, dated 23-5-1979 from the Assistant Commissioner (Sadar), Lahore, passed an order, dated 18-6-1979 that the resumed land be adjusted against the unsatisfied P.I. Units of the informers. The aforesaid orders, dated 31-10-1977 and 18-6-1979 were carried out. The allotment of the resumed land was made by the authorities in favour of informers/respondents Nos.1 to 9 followed by necessary entries in the relevant Revenue Record.
3. Muhammad Ali and 6 others, successors-in-interest of an original allottee tiled Writ Petition No,1098-R of 1979 against order, dated 31-10-1977 of the cancellation of allotment of disputed land which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court by judgment, dated 19-5-1979. Their Intra-Court Appeal No,4 of 1980 and C.P.L.A. No,459 of 1990 were dismissed by the Lahore High Court as also by this Court by judgments dated 27-2-1990 and 25-6-1990 respectively.
4. Chanan Masih and others claiming to be vendees from original allottees also tiled a Writ Petition No,662-R of 1979 against the order of cancellation of allotment of disputed land of village Gohawa, Tehsil and District Lahore which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court by order, dated 30-6-1979.
Their Intra-Court Appeal No,213 of 1979 and C.P.L.A. No,518/L of 1990 were also dismissed by the Lahore High Court and by this Court by orders dated 27-2-1990 and 25-6-1990 respectively. Two Writ Petitions No,584-R of 1981 and 366-R of 1983 tiled by the purchasers from original allottees against cancellation of land of village Chung Khurd were also dismissed by the Lahore High Court, as withdrawn, by orders dated 19-12-1982 and 16-5-1984 respectively.
5. Akbar Ali and 6 others claiming to be vendees from the original allottees filed Writ Petition No,507-R of 1979 which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court by judgment, dated 19-5-1979.
Thereafter they filed another Writ Petition No,993/R of 1979 on the plea of being in cultivating possession of the disputed land which was dismissed by the High Court by order, dated 27-2-1990 and their C.P.L.A. No,458 of 1990 there against was also dismissed by this Court by order, dated 10- 6-1990.
6. Thereafter, the appellant, the Province of Punjab through Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Board of Revenue tiled Writ Petition No,41-R of 1996 challenging the validity of the order, dated 31-10-1977 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Lahore of the cancellation of the original allotment/P.T.Ds of the disputed land and consequent allotment to the respondents Nos.1 to 9. The same was dismissed by the impugned judgment, dated 9-10-2001 by the Lahore High Court. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 23-1-2002 to consider, inter alia, the contention that agricultural land in the entire Province of Punjab having been declared to be building site through Notification No,1697-73/1567-R(L), dated 16-5-1977, as such could not be allotted against verified claim of agricultural land even to an informant, therefore, the allotment made in favour of the respondent on 31-10-1977 was void ab initio."
7. Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, the learned Advocate-General, Punjab submitted that the earlier judgments of High Court and of this Court did not operate as an estoppel or res judicata as the same had been obtained by fraud. The writ petition filed by the appellant could have been treated as an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. The P.T.Ds. In favour of original allottees of the land had already been cancelled and the mutations were also, reviewed by the Revenue Officer on 9-7-1974 much earlier than the passage of order, dated 31-10-1977 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land). The Assistant Commissioner (Saddar), Lahore in his letter, dated 26-4-1974 had informed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Plots), Lahore that P.T.Ds. Of the original allottees had not at all been issued by his office. It was contended that all the units of respondents Nos.1 to 9 had already been satisfied by the allotment of rural as well as urban land. He stated that the said respondents had got allotment of rural area against 33099 P.I. Units in villages 37-S.P., Malipur, Malka Hans and Taik Chand of Distict Pakpattan and in village Khana Lakhana, District Sheikhupura. He futher stated that a claim of 3561 urban units of the respondents Nos.1 to 9 had also been adjusted in Pakpattan and Bhakkar. The respondents Nos.1 to 9 had exceeded the maximum limit of 36000 P.I. Units of allotment as prescribed by para. 3 of Part 11 of Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme and para. 7 Chapter III of Supplementary Scheme No,II. The learned Advocate-General argued, that the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Punjab had issued a Notification, dated 16-5-1973 (published in the Punja Gazette on 19-5-1973) whereby all the available evacuee urban agricultural lands in all the revenue estates situated within the urban limits of a Municipal Corporation throughout the Province of Punjab were declared as building sites for disposal under section 13 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Therefore, the disputed land could not have been allotted to the respondents Nos.1 to 9. He relied on the cases of Muhammad Ramzan and others v, Member (Revenue)/CSC and others (1997 SCM R 1635), Ali Muhammad and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (2001 SCM R 1822) and Bashir Ahmed and others v. Punjab University Academic Staff Association and others (1991 SCM R 377) wherein it was held that in view of the Notification, dated 16-5-1973 ,by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, urban agricultural lands having been declared as building sites were no longer available properties for the allotment to the informants.
8. On the other hand, Syed Najum-ul-Hassan Kazmi, learned counsel for the vendees from respondents No,1 to 9 argued that view of the mandatory provisions of subsection (I-A) of section 14 as added by the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) (Amendment) Act, 1974 (No, -XXXVI of 1974) the allotment of the resumed land was a vested right of an informant. The learned counsel produced a copy of instructions contained in Memo. No,192-Pol/74, dated 18-2-1974 issued by the office of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner whereby earlier Notification, dated 16-5-1973 was further clarified that evacuee urban agricultural land, upon, its cancellation, was required to be allotted to an informant. The learned counsel pointed out that the question of effect of' Notification, dated 16-5-1973 had never been raised earlier by the appellant. The appellant was a party in all rounds of litigation before the High Court as also before this Court who had accepted the validity of order, dated 31-10-1977 passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land).
The appellant could not he treated to be an aggrieved person within the meaning of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 so as to challenge the aforesaid order, dated 31-10-1977. It was contended that as against their claim of 61886 P.I. Units, only 35351 P.I. Units of the respondents Nos.1 to 9 including the allotment of disputed land had been adjusted/satisfied so far which was within the permissible limit of 36000 P.I. Units. The learned counsel lastly submitted that in the earlier rounds of litigation the High Court and this Court had finally set the controversy at rest which operated as res judicata and estoppel against the appellant.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. As regards Notification, dated 16-5- 1973, suffice it to say that no such plea was taken by the appellant at any earlier stage of the proceedings before the High Court or before this Court. In the case of Syed Shaukat Hussain A Rizvi v. K.B. Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan and others (PLD 1974 SC 276), a similar plea as to, Notification, dated 16-5-1973 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was not permitted to be taken for the first time before the Supreme Court. We are inclined to follow the suit. It took the department almost nine years to wake up from a deep slumber to challenge the order, dated 31-10-1977 despite the fact that it was a party to all the litigation. The Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner had also passed an order, dated 18-6-1979, upon a reference, dated 23-5-1979 of the Assistant Commissioner (Saddar), for the allotment of disputed land to the informers. 'It would have been a futile exercise to treat the writ petition of the appellant as an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. All the earlier Writ Petitions and Intra-Court Appeals in the matter had been dismissed by the High Court regarding which no fraud or misrepresentation was alleged or pleaded. The appellant cannot be said to be aggrieved of the dismissal of the writ - petitions and appeals. It is not desirable to re-open the matter which is a past and closed transaction since the controversy has already been finally determined by this Court in earlier rounds of litigation. This Court by order, dated 5-10-2000 (authored by the Hon`ble Chief Justice) in Criminal Original Petition No,29-L of 1999 has already observed that the dispute in this case has been resolved vide order previously passed and the matter has attained finality. While disposing of the C.P.L.A. No,459 of 1990 by order, dated 25-6-1990 this Court made the following observations in para.4 thereof:- "4. As regards the status of the informers the Settlement Authorities have examined it and have come to the conclusion that it was on their information that such a large scale fraud with regard to the urban agricultural land was discovered and have proceeded to recognize their rights under the law."
' We find that the department itself had supported the claim of the respondents Nos.1 to 9 in its parawise comments to the I.C.A. No,4 of 1980 and was, therefore, estopped by conduct to take a somersault. All the pleas raised by the appellant even though available were not taken earlier.
10. The High Court rightly declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and to go behind the judgments of this Court in the matter. We do not find any error of law or of jurisdiction in the impugned judgment.
This is not a fit case for interference by this Court.
11. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in this Civil Appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly with costs.