1984 PLP 1418 (CLC)

19. 2‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 11‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Mukhbari application filed against dead claimant that he obtained area in excess of his entitlement‑His legal heirs impleaded after repeal of relevant Act‑Proceedings against dead person, held, a nullity Proceedings against persons impleaded as heirs on application filed after repeal of relevant Act, held further, also without lawful authority as reliance could not be placed on any provision of repealed Act. Chan Oil Mills v. Muhammad Zakria & Co. P L D 1958 W. P. Kar. 510 and Reliance Bank Ltd. v. United Bank of India Ltd. P L D a 1971 Dacca 15 ref. The facts necessary to be stated in this case are briefly as follows

2. One Shattab Khan son of Sale Khan, a claimant displaced person from Jajaka, Tehsil Tajara, Alwar State, migrated to Pakistan and settled in village Marali Hithar, Tehsil Kasur, District Lahore. A claim bearing No. 8146 regarding the land owned and abandoned by Shattab Khan in Alwar State was filed by him which was verified by the Central Record Room: Land in lieu of the verified claim was proposed and confirmed at Khata No. 103 of Mauza Marali Hithar, where he was settled, some time in 1960. The aforesaid Shattab Khan died shortly thereafter. leaving behind Kamlu his sole heir, and mutation No. 169 dated 20th March, 1963, was sanctioned in his favour. Kamlu died and mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of the petitioners on 28‑6‑1974.

3. On 10‑6‑1974 a Mukhbari application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was filed before the Assistant Commissioner/Collector by Suleman son of Abdur Rahman, respondent No. 2, against Shattab Khan, to the effect that he had obtained the area far in excess of his entitlement. Since Shattab Khan was dead, before the Mukhbari application was filed, respondent No. 1 submitted an application on 6‑11‑1975 to implead the legal heirs of Shattab Khan, without however making any mention of Kamlu, their immediate predecessor. This application was granted on 6‑3‑1976 and the petitioners, on the assumption that they were the legal heirs of Shattab Khan, were allowed to be brought on the record. The validity of this order is questioned by this Writ Petition.‑

4. The contention that on the promulgation of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974 (Ordinance XIV of 19741, which was deemed to have taken effect on the 1st of July, 1974, the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1951 was inter alia, repealed. Consequently, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under sections 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement). Act could not be taken. Hence the order dated 6.3‑1976 was without lawful authority.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No: 2 has submitted that the Mukhbari application was filed on 10‑6‑1974 before the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Hence as a pending proceedings the said application should be continued and disposed of on the merits.

6. I find no force in this submission. The Mukhbari application under section 10/ l 1 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act was filed against Shattab Khan, who was already dead. Any proceeding taken against a dead person is a nullity. Consequently, the proceeding taken against Shattab Khan, vide application dated i0‑6‑1974 had no legal validity in the eye of law and could not be deemed to be pending proceeding. The proceedings that can be taken notice of are the proceedings taken in pursuance of the application submitted on 2611‑1975 to bring the petitioners on record. In the said application, too as already noticed, they were described as the legal heirs of Shattab' Khan, whereas in fact they were the legal heirs of Kamlu deceased. Be that as it may, the present petitioners were ordered to be impleaded‑ as parties, vide order dated 6‑3‑1976. Thus the proceedings against them can be considered to have been initiated either on 26‑11‑1975. when the application to bring them on the record was made on 6‑3‑1976, when the said application was granted. See in this connection Chan Oil Mill v. Muhammad Zakria & Co. (P L D 1958 W. P. Kar. 510) and Reliance Bank. Ltd, v. United Bank of India Ltd (P 'L D 1971 Dacca 119). By both these dates, however, the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 stood repealed and no reliance could be placed on any of its provisions. Hence the proceedings taken against the petitioners, culminating in the order passed by respondent No. 1 on 6‑3‑1976, are without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

7. The overall conclusion is that this Writ Petition succeeds. It, is hereby accepted, but the parties are left to bear their own costs. M. Y. H. Petition accepted.