1986 PLP 1028 (MLD)

Date of hearing: 20th April 1986. This is for the second time that the petitioners have been compelled to come to this Court. Earlier Umar Din and others respondents herein claimed, themselves as tenants and thus, entitled to retain the land in dispute, brought W.P. No.237/R of 1980, against Mst. Rehmo and others, challenging the validity of the orders of the learned Member, Board of Revenue. The latter on the basis of an inquiry into the character of the land, found that it formed part of the compensation pool and, therefore, mutations in respect thereof in favour of the Provincial Government, treating it as latter's property were illegal. Thus under the order, impugned in that writ petition, the learned Member had directed restoration of the land to the Central Government as part of the compensation pool. Though writ petition involved determination of the character of the land but the respondents herein, also threw a challenge to the allotments (Annexures 'D, D/2 and D/3' in Writ Petition No. 237/R‑80) in the name of Mst. Rehmo and others dubbed the same as ante‑dated and forged one. However, that plea was rejected and it was maintained that the allotment orders were not spurious documents. The writ petition was dismissed by me on 17‑10‑1982. This dismissal was upheld by an I.‑C.A. Bench and even the Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal.

2. After losing the first round of litigation, the respondents‑tenants moved a miscellaneous application before the learned M . B . R . / C . S . C . that the allotment in favour of Mst. Noor Bhari was fake and forged and prayed for holding of an inquiry in the matter. The learned Member endorsed this application to the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Kasur. The latter embarked upon an inquiry. Through this writ petition these Proceedings are sought to be declared as without lawful authority.

3. In the parawise comments submitted by the Collector, it is averred that the claim of Mst. Rehmo, who is predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners, was, bogus and not verified by the Central Record Office and that the multiple allotment had been obtained against this same. On 25‑3‑1986, the writ petition was admitted to regular hearing after recording the following observations:‑‑ Mr. Noor Din, Nalb‑Tehsildar, Central Record Office, Lahore, has brought the relevant register Haqdaran, maintained in the Central Record Office, which shows that at Serial No. 12 of the Register, under Claim Form No.2869 an area measuring 510 Kanals 15 Marlas was verified in the name of Mst. Rahmoon widow of Natha. She is the predecessor‑in‑interest of the writ petitioners. The record further reveals that the verification was cancelled for the reason that a part of the area aforesaid was under occupancy tenants but it was not so specified in the verification. Accordingly, at Serial No.10 'Tattima', the area under occupancy tenants was verified and shown to be 167 Kanals 16 Marlas. However, the total figure of 510 Kanals 15 Marlas, remained the same."

4. I? have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record again today. The learned counsel appearing for the Department has stated at the bar that the Department wants to re‑open the case of the allotment in village Bhalerian. However, it is discernible from the record produced before the Bench 'that the verified entitlement of Mst. Rahmoon was 510 Kanals 15 Marlas equivalent to 1561 produce index units, against which an area measuring 946 Kanals 13 Marlas in lieu of 1,514 units was allotted. It is thus, obvious that the allotment fell within the entitlement of Mst..Rehmo through whom the petitioner claim. The respondents failed to show that this is a case of multiple allotment. Even otherwise after the repeal of the evacuee laws by Act XIV of 1975, no power vested in the Department to re‑open the allotment in favour of the petitioners. In Sher Afzal Khan and others v. Ha" Razi Abdullah and others 1984 S C M R 228, the departmental authorities after enforcement of Act XIV of 1975, re‑opened a case of transfer of property, in respect whereof a P.T.D. had been issued and the Supreme Court agreeing with the interference by the High Court through constitutional jurisdiction, maintained:‑‑ .....Apart from the reasons that found favour with the learned Chief Justice‑ of the High Court, with which we agree fully, we find that the undisputed fact remains that the P.T.D. issued in favour of the first respondent covered the whole property which remained in the field until the repeal of the Settlement Laws, which accordingly was a past and closed transaction. We do not see how, after the repeal of these laws, the authorities under the new dispensation that came into being under the repealing statute and under the new scheme promulgated in 1976, could undertake an enquiry in order to review and reopen such past and closed‑ transactions. Even a case of fraud could be enquired into or adjudicated upon provided jurisdiction to exercise such power survives the repeal. No such provision was pointed out by the learned counsel. The exercise of jurisdiction was, therefore, palpably coram non judice and wholly incompetent." Since the allotment in favour of the petitioners was not a pending case envisaged by section 2(2) of Act XI V of 1975, the inquiry commenced against petitioner No.1 is with lawful authority.

5. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is accepted and the proceedings commenced against the petitioners are declared to be without lawful authority. The costs shall be borne by respondents. H.B.T ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted