P L D 1986 Lahore 109 (PLP)

This writ petition has been filed by the widow and a, daughter of the deceased claimant to call in question the assumption of jurisdiction by the Tehsildar, Samundri for cancellation of the allotment of evacuee agricultural land made by the competent Rehabilitation Authority way back on 5‑11‑1954 at R. L. II Khata No. 229 of Chak No. 140/G. B., Tehsil Semundri.

2. The proceedings for the aforesaid purpose have been initiated by the Tehsildar who is a Revenue Officer in pursuance of a Robkar issued by the Tehsildar, Incharge Central Record Office, Lahore on 13‑8‑1984. A perusal of it shows that private persons unconcerned with the property, for reasons of their own, gave an application. dated 25‑5‑1983 to Central Record Office against the petitioners. The Robkar stated that the entitlement of the claimants bad originally been sent to Toba Tek Singly but the allotment had been made in the abovementioned Chak in Tehsil Samundri. The entitlement of the claimant is also recorded therein. The officials who are present with the record frankly state that as per petitioners' entitlement, even according to aforementioned Robkar, is 1.033 produce index units whereas at R L. II Khata No. 229, land equivalent to 967 P. I. Us. bad been allotted by a competent authority. Thus there was no excess allotment. They further state that there was no evidence to show that any allotment had been made in Tehsil Toba Tek Singh against the same claim.

3. The self‑speaking picture, which emerged at the hearing, shows that petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest was a claimant whose entitlement was duly verified for 1,033 produce index units. The allotment was made by a competent authority two decades before the repeat of the A Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and that the impugned proceedings had been initiated by inimical persons through an application submitted to the Officer‑on‑Special Duty, Central Record Office for the first time on 25‑0‑1983 and that the very basis that it was a case of double allotment had no legs to stand upon.

4. This brings me to the legal position relatable to the complete want or absence of jurisdiction in the respondents to initiate the impugned proceedings to the detriment of the petitioners despite the repeal of the evacuee laws way back in the year 1974. I would here like to rely on my own decision in the case of Mst. Iqbal Siddiqui v. Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Urban) and others (P L D 1984 Lah. 291), in which the effects of repeal of evacuee laws by Act XIV of 1975 have been fully discussed and elaborated in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. In the circumstances of the present case, I have no hesitation in holding that neither the Officer‑on‑Special Duty, Central Record OM had jurisdiction or power to entertain an application with respect to claim for the first time nine years after the repeal of the evacuee laws in the year 1974 nor was he competent to move the district Revenue authorities or the notified officers to assume jurisdiction or take action on the j basis of his impugned Robkar. 1 am equally clear that respondents on the basis of incompetent Robkar were completely powerless to circumvent the mandate of law and to assume jurisdiction in the matter of allotment which had attained finality' under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act either as Revenue authorities or as notified officers or even by virtue of the scheme framed under Act XIV of 1975 for the purpose of disposal of available lands. The jurisdiction assumed and powers sought to be exercised were thus clearly acts coram non judice and ab initio void.

5. The further circumstance that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Tehsildar is intended to implement the Robkar from Officer‑on Special Duty, Central Record Office is also fallacious. It ought not to be overlooked that when a person issuing the Robkar himself suffered from complete want of jurisdiction in the matter, then his Robkar would constitute a complete nullity in law. The O. S. D., Central Record Office would be wholly incompetent to confer a jurisdiction on the statutory functionaries which, they otherwise, did not possess under the law. The further fact that respondent No. 4 was taking steps in pursuance of direction of Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioners as Collec tors under the Land Revenue Act is also totally devoid of merits in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. The Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner, as such or as Collectors under the Land Revenue Act or even as notified officers are wholly incompetent to interfere with or give any lawful direction in the matter of allotment made in settlement of claims under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 in respect of which no proceedings were pending since before the repeal of the evacuee laws by Act XIV of 1975. In my view, it is not permissible to allow harassment and persecution of citizens at the hands of state functionaries who are either ignorant or pretending to be ignorant of law. The unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction amounting to flagrant abuse of authority may well be actionable at law.

6. The Deputy Commissioner/Collector himself suffered from total want of jurisdiction and thus any direction given by him to his subordinate i.e. Assistant Commissioner or Tehsildar who equally lacked jurisdiction in the matter, cannot furnish a valid basis for compelling the petitioners to submit to their imaginary jurisdiction or authority.

7. It must also be observed that the impugned action cannot also he justified on the plea that the Revenue authorities would be making changes in the revenue records. This would amount to a dubious device not sanctioned by law. The revenue record entries are to faithfully follow the entries and orders of the Settlement authorities in the prescribed R. L. II registers as per Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The Revenue authorities possess no powers or authority to inter‑meddle or interfere with allotments under the Land Settlement Act and in the absence of such an authority they inherently lack jurisdiction to go behind the allotments made by the Settlement authorities or go against Settlement records on any pretext or pretended plea in the facts of this case. In the present case, it stands admitted that the allotment in favour of the predecessor‑in interest of the petitioners was made by a competent Rehabilitation/Settlement authority. It is not a case where no allotment had factually) been made at all. The writ petition is accordingly accepted and direction in the nature of writ of prohibition is issued to the respondents to refrain from doing that which they are not permitted by law to do and not to interfere with the property rights of the petitioners in the land in dispute. There shall however, be no order as to costs. M. Y. H. Petition accepted.