' Fateh Muhammad son of Heera Khan was allotted land measuring 631 Kanals, 9 Marlas at Khata No,139 in village Karyal, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, who, however, on his death was succeeded by Taj Din. The latter sold land measuring 423 Kanals, 18 Marlas to Taj Din alias Taja, who is now succeeded by his legal representatives, the respondents herein, vide registered sale-deed dated 278-1966. Necessary entries in the Revenue Record were carried out and he was shown owner of the land in the Jamabandi of year 1966. The land was leased out by him to tenants. The said tenants, however, refused to pay and filed suit in the Civil Court at Gujranwala restraining him from collecting Batai. This was on the basis of their assertion that land comprising Khata No,139 had been cancelled from the name of allottee, (his vendor). It was then that Taj Din alias Taja made enquiries and learnt about the orders dated 7-12-1967 and 12-9-1968. Writ Petition No,961-R of 1975 was thus filed by him assailing orders dated 7-12-1967 and 12-9-1968 which was dismissed in limine on 28-4-1975 mainly on the ground of laches. The matter was then agitated by him before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan which culminated into a judgment dated 21-1-1991, passed in Civil Appeal No,370 of 1980, by virtue of the said judgment the appeal was accepted by their lordships observing that "the orders dated 7-12-1967 and 12-9-1968 are declared contrary to law and without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect". An application under section 12(2), C.P.C.
For recalling of judgment dated 21-1-1991, filed by Zafar Ullah Baig and 16 others, however (Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No,4 of 2000) was dismissed by their lordships on 6-6-2000 that the application was "vexatious filed with a view to prolonging the miseries of the deceased appellant and his successor-ininterest". The instant petition was filed initially by five persons claiming to be in possession of the land that they were entitled to purchase the same under Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 (Act XIV of 1975). Later on, however, Din Muhammad and Muhammad Din petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 respectively got themselves deleted and their names were accordingly struck off. The petition is being pursued by the remaining petitioners. With the concurrence of the learned counsel for the parties the case has been heard as a regular matter.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that since the allotment of Fateh Muhammad had been cancelled, the petitioners being in possession are entitled to purchase the land for which purpose they had made an application as well, as averred in paragraph 9 of the writ petition. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand refutes the assertion of the petitioners on the strength of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 21-1-1991 in Civil Appeal No,370 of 1980 and contends that the petitioners have no locus standi or right whatsoever either to claim the land or to maintain this petition. The learned counsel for the department also opposes the petition that since the land is not available, the petitioners cannot lay claim to the same.
3. The brief resume of the factual background given in the opening part of the judgment, would leave no scope for doubt that Taj Din alias Taja had succeeded in his appeal (Civil Appeal No,370 of 1980). The relevant and operative part of the said judgment dated 21-1-1991 reads as under:- "So far as merits are concerned we observe that the orders being relied upon to cancel the allotment of the land in question especially the order dated 7-12-1967 (on the basis of which the subsequent order of implementation dated 12-9-1968 was passed) is not available even in the records of the officials respondents. It, therefore, seems that the existence of the orders is even doubtful. In any case, the same having been passed behind the back of the appellants is against.
The principles of the natural justice and, therefore, liable to be set aside on that short ground.
' The result is that this appeal succeeds and is hereby accepted.
' The orders dated 7-12-1967 and 12-9-1968 are declared contrary to law and without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect."
'As mentioned above, the said judgment was maintained by the Supreme Court while dismissing application under section 12(2), C.P.C. On 6-6-2000. Thus the orders on the basis whereof cancellation of the land from the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent was claimed having been declared as of no legal effect, the allotment of the land and the sale thereof in favour of Taj Din alias Taja remained intact. Therefore, no right whatsoever can be claimed by the petitioners merely on the basis of their assertion of possession. The determination and disposition made by the Apex Court can neither be bypassed nor the verity and validity thereof be examined by this Court. The same has binding force and effect under Article 189 and Article 190 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Right duly recognized by the judgment of the Supreme Court, had to be given effect and the respondents cannot be denuded of the same. Suffice it to observe that in reply to the assertion made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition (about their application for purchase of the land under Act (XIV of 1975), the position taken by the department that "the petitioners are neither allottees nor claimants nor the said land is available for sale", is consistent with the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 21-1-1991 rendered in Civil Appeal No,370 of 1980 referred to above. It may be mentioned that only property "available" for disposal can be dealt with under section 3(1) of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, but the land in dispute was not so "available" in view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. The petitioners thus have no right whatsoever to lay claim to the land in dispute nor any locus standi for invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
' The petition being bereft of merit is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.