2025 PLP 941 (MLD)

Shams Mehmood Mirza, J.

This order shall decide the present writ petition as well as connected Writ Petitions No.41334 of 2022 and No.21099 of 2022 on account of similarity of facts and the order that is under challenge in all the petitions.

2. For the purposes of this order only the facts of the present case shall be stated.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the land in question measuring 43 Kanal 10 Marla situated in Chak Shumali Tehsil and District Jhang was originally allotted to one Bismillah Begum through RL-II dated 03.07.1961 by the Settlement Department. The petitioners are subsequent purchasers of the said property through registered sale deeds executed in the year 1993. The Deputy Administrator Evacuee Trust, Jhang filed a reference under sections 8 and 10 of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 (the Act) for declaring the land in question as evacuee trust property and for cancellation of RL-II No.18 dated 03.07.1961. The Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board (the Board) through order dated 04.06.2005 cancelled the allotment in favour of Bismillah Begum by declaring the land in question to be evacuee property. The petitioners acquired knowledge of the proceedings when notice dated 28.11.2018 was served on them by Deputy/Assistant Administrator, Jhang for their eviction. The petitioners soon thereafter filed a revision before the Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony/respondent No.2 which dismissed on 10.06.2020. was

4. Learned counsel submit that the petitioners were not made a party in the reference filed before the Chairman of the Board and as such they were condemned unheard. It is stated that respondent No.2 declared the revision to be barred by limitation and also did not take into account section 10 of the Act. Learned counsel for the Board, on the other hand, supported the order passed by respondent No.2.

5. Argument heard, record perused.

6. Respondent No.2 in the impugned order clearly held that the petitioner had notice of the proceedings of the reference initiated before the Chairman of the Board and thus their revision was barred by limitation. In this regard, it was stated in the impugned order that "....several notices were issued to the all concerned which prima facie establishes the awareness/knowledge of the petitioners about the proceedings...". Learned counsel for the Board admitted that the petitioners were not made party to the reference filed before the Chairman of the Board. That being the case, attributing knowledge to the petitioners through issuance of notices is beyond comprehension. This fact alone militates against the findings recorded by respondent No.2 in the impugned order that the revision filed by the petitioners was barred by limitation.

7. Section 10 of the Act in so far it is relevant reads as under:

10. Validation of certain transfers.--(1) An immovable evacuee trust property.-- (a) if situated in a rural area and utilised bona fide under any Act prior to June 1964, for allotment against the satisfaction of verified claims; and (b) .. shall be deemed to have been validly transferred by sale to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, and the sale proceeds thereof shall be re-imbursed to the Board and shall form part of the Trust Pool. (2) If a question arises whether a transaction referred to in subsection (1) is bona fide or not, it shall be decided by the Chairman whose decision shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court.

8. The import of section 10 (1) of the Act is clear that any bona fide allotment of evacuee property situated in rural area prior to June 1968 against satisfaction of the verified claims shall be deemed as a valid transfer and in such eventuality the only remedy available to the Board is to claim the sale proceeds from the Chief Settlement Commissioner.

9. The provisions contained in section 10(1) of the Act require the Chairman of the Board to investigate in the first place whether the property is in fact an evacuee property or not. Having crossed this threshold, the Chairman is then required to inquire into the bona fides of the transaction for allotment of evacuee property against duly verified claims. This stage of inquiry necessitates recording of evidence of the Settlement Department or at least a statement on oath by any of its officials. The persons in whose favour the allotment was made by the Settlement Department or their successors, as the case may be, are mandatorily required to be heard by the Chairman of the Board. It is only after the completion of all these stages of the inquiry that the Chairman of the Board can make a determination that the transaction of allotment of evacuee property lacked bona fide or otherwise. If an order is made to the effect that allotment was bona fide it shall constitute transfer by sale of the evacuee property in favour of the Settlement Department thereby entitling the Board to receive the sale proceeds from the Settlement Department.

10. In the present case, neither the Chairman of the Board nor respondent No.2 in their impugned orders made any determination that the allotment of land in favour of Bismillah Begum was lacking in bona fide. Similarly, the process requirements for holding of the inquiry by the Chairman of the Board were also not met with. The orders passed by the Chairman of the Board and respondent No.2 do not meet the requirements imposed by section 10 (1) of the Act.

11. In this view of the matter, orders dated 04.06.2005 and 10.06.2020 passed by the Chairman of the Board and respondent No.2 respectively are not sustainable in the law and facts of the case. This writ petition is accordingly allowed and orders dated 04.06.2005 and 10.06.2020 are set aside with the result that the matter shall be deemed to be pending before the Chairman of the Board who shall decide the same afresh in accordance with law after granting hearing to the petitioners and the Settlement Department. The connected writ petitions are also allowed. SA/M-82/L Petitions allowed.