P L D 1977 Lahore 264 (PLP)

The copy shows that the portion regarding signatures reads as "(Sd,)-,S. D. O. Khanewal. The basic notice in this case thus having been issued by an incompetent Authority. was void ab initio and any proceedings or superstructure based thereon n the form of the orders of the higher authorities as laid down in Yousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia and 2 others P L D 1958 S C (pak) 104 will also be void. I hold accordingly.

5. Learned counsel then submitted that the Collector in the instant case while resuming the lot did not pass a conscientious order of his own and simply affixed his initials or signatures on an office-noting. This, according to the learned counsel, was not a conscientious application of mind as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din v, Chief Settlement Commissioner and others P L D 1964 S C 829 I have gone through the relevant office-rioting in this respect, copy of which have been filed in the fork ,.; Annex. "VI", which reads as follows -- (Sd.) S. D. O., Khanewal As the purchasers are intentionally avoiding payment of price, the lot may be cancelled. (Sd.) H. V. C. 7-7-1965 May resume ? (Sd.) H. V. C. 8-7-1965 (Sd.) Collector Multan. 10-7-1965." A perusal of this material will show two things. Firstly the S. D. O Khane wal was not a Collector and that is why that he submitted the record to the Collector. Multan, for orders. Secondly, the Collector simply initialed or signed against his official designation when the case had been put up to him. In the case cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Supreme Court at page 835 observed as follows :- "The Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Policy) accordingly suggested that the house be got inspected again by the Settlement Commissioner (Policy) before passing any order. This was evidently directed and the Settlement Commissioner (Policy) after inspecting the house on the 20th of August, 1960, reported that the house was indivisible and.. therefore, the order of the Settlement Commissioner transferring the whole house to the respondent No. 3!' should be allowed to stand and all the petitions dismissed. The Chief Settlement Commissioner as already stated, without giving any reasons" of his own simply countersigned the report of the Settlement Com missioner (Policy) on the 16th of September 1960." At page 840, their Lordships then held that "A second inspection of the premises was, in the circumstances, sugges ted. This was done by the Settlement Commissioner (Policy), but the latter in his note only dealt with the question of the divisibility of the house and proposed that all the petitions should be rejected. Ins these circumstances, we are of the opinion that it behoved the Chief Settlement Commissioner to apply his own independent mind to the questions raised before him and to deal with the three revision petitions put up before him in accordance with law. By merely countersigning, on the note of the Settlement Commissioner (Policy), we are clearly of the view, the Chief Settlement Commissioner had not exercised the jurisdiction vested in him in accordance with law and that there was no proper disposal of the revision petitions filed before him." Respectfully following the aforesaid law, I hold that the Collector in the instant case also did not independently examine the case and there was n proper disposal of the case on this point. As a result of the defects herein before mentioned in the impugned orders, the same shall have to be declared as to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect against the petitioners and the case shall have to be remanded to the learned Collector for fresh decision in accordance with law.

6. Though this was sufficient to dispose of this case, but the learned counsel for the petitioners wanted to raise certain arguments regarding the inconsistency in the disposal of these cases, inasmuch as, with regard to lots Nos. 35 and 36, the learned Addl. Commissioner (Revenue) Multan had restored those lots to the petitioners giving them an opportunity to rectify the mistake whereas with regard to the present lot No. 43, he did not apply the same law on the same facts and same circumstances pertaining to the same parties. Certain objections were also taken with regard to the service of notice Annex. "H" and its validity contending that it could not constitute a notice under section 24 of the Act. As the findings recorded by me above in Paras. 1 to 5 are sufficient to dispose of the case, and the case has to be remanded to the Collector for fresh decision in accordance with law, I need not to attend to the rest of the submissions made by the learned counsel which can well be attended to by the Collector while deciding the case afresh.

7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the present writ petition is accepted. The impugned proceedings and orders are declared to he with out lawful authority and of no legal consequence against the petitioners and are hereby quashed and the case is remanded to the learned Collector for disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the petitioners to defend themselves and raise such points and pleas which they may be advised to do. Order accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. S. Q. Petition accepted.