P L D 1966 (W (PLP)

WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑

This judgment will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 154, 496, 541 and 875 of 1962, 59 and 413 of 1963, 269 of 1964 and 457 of 1965 as common questions of law arise in them. These Writ Petitions have arisen in the following circumstances:‑

The petitioners are claimant displaced persons and their claims were verified by the Claims Officers under Registration of Displaced Persons Claims Act, 1956, in respect of agricultural lands abandoned by them in India. Their claims were verified separately but, for convenience sake, Q. P. R. V, under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Scheme, was issued jointly in their names. On 28th December 1960, Martial Law Regulation No. 84 was promulgated. Under para. 2 of the said Regulation, every claimant from non‑agreed area was required to submit written statement giving true facts of his claim. Their claims were to be verified from the revenue records received from India. Later on, the Government of Pakistan changed the Policy. Accordingly on 23rd August 1961, Martial Law Regulation 89 was brought into force. The Scheme of this Regulation is that further verifica tion of the claims of claimants from non‑agreed area was got rid off and, under para. 5, a slab system was introduced by which the index‑produced unit was cut down from all the claims in a certain ratio mentioned therein. The claimants who had obtained Q. P. R. V were to be issued M. R. V under para. 6 of the said Regulation on the basis of the index produce unit mentioned in para. 5 of the said Regulation. After M. R. V was issued to them the claimants were entitled to get their entitlement adjusted out of the temporary allotments of their lands.

2. All the petitioners are from non‑agreed areas and are governed by the above‑mentioned Martial Law Regulation. They submitted their written statement under Martial Law Regulation No. 84 within the prescribed period in M. R. I. After the introduction of Martial Law Regulation No. 89 they claimed that entitlement should be issued to them separately on the basis of the claims verified by the Claims Officers. The Settlement Authorities did not accede to this request. M. R. V was issued to them on the same basis as Q. P. R. V was issued. The petitioners are aggrieved by these orders. Their contention is that by issuing joint M. R. V the Settlement Authorities have considerably curtailed their entitlement under clause 5 of Martial Law Regulation No. 89 which, it is alleged, is not permissible under the said Martial Law Regulation. It may be mentioned that in all the cases M. R. V was issued to the petitioners in the year 1961, that is to say, before the introduction of the Constitu tion of Pakistan in 1962. The petitioners have challenged these orders in these Writ Petitions.

3. In support of the petition the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have urged that M. R. V issued to them offends against the principle of natural justice, as these were issued without notice to them. The petitioners have further contended that under Martial Law Regulation No. 89 every claimant is entitled to get his entitlement under para. 5 of the said Regulation. It is vehemently contended that the Settlement Authorities have erroneously issued joint entitlement to them and have erroneously applied the slab system introduced under para. 5 of the said Regulation on the basis, of their joint claims. Their main grievance is that the Settlement Authorities ought to have considered separately, the verified claims of the petitioners and issued entitlement to them in accordance with para. 5 of the said Regulation separately.

4. Mr. Wasim Rizvi, the learned counsel appearing for the Department, has raised a preliminary objection that the jurisdic tion of this Court is barred by Martial Law Regulation No.

89. He has further contended that the jurisdiction of this Court is further barred under Martial Law Regulations 88 and

93. In support of his contention the learned counsel has referred us to an unreported decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos K‑10 and K‑11 of 1962 decided on 11th March 1964, by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. In that case, which also arose under Martial Law Regulation No. 89, their Lordships declined to interfere with the order of the competent authority on the ground that under the above‑mentioned Regulation the jurisdiction of the Courts is completely ousted. In this connection their Lordships observed as under :‑-- "It appears to us that the Martial Law Regulation 88, as amended by Martial Law Regulation 93 altogether cuts the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of acts done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers tinder any Martial Law Regulation. The impugned order having been passed by Mr. A. Rauf Chaudhry in exercise of the power granted to him by Martial Law Regulation No. 89 is thus immune from attack or challenge in a Court of Law." After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that the contention of the learned representative of the Department is well founded. Even if we come to the conclusion that the order of the competent authority under Martial Law Regulation No. 89 is erroneous and without lawful authority, it is not open to this Court to set aside that order because under the above‑mentioned Regulation any order purported to have been passed under Martial Law Regulations is not open to challenge before the High Court or the Supreme Court. We are, therefore, of the view that this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the validity of the impugned orders.

5. It was, urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after the promulgation of the Constitution of Pakistan in 1962 it is open to this Court to disregard the provisions of Martial Law Regulations 88 and 93, if it comes to the conclusion that the competent authority had not acted lawfully. The contention of the learned counsel has no force because under Article 225 of the Constitution, sub‑clause (3) of Martial Law Regulation No. 89 has been saved and it has now become an Act of the Central Legislature. Since the impugned orders were passed before the introduction of the Constitution, the law applicable to these cases would be the one prevalent at that time. As the jurisdiction of this Court is barred under Martial Law Regulation 89, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted as sound.

6. Before parting with this case we may mention that we were inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners that their claims should have been separately considered for purposes of para. 5 of Martial Law Regulation

89. According to the definition of the word `claimant' and the language of para. 5 of the said Regulation it is abundantly clear that the rights of the claimants are to be separately considered for purposes of issuing entitlement under it; but for the fact that we have no jurisdiction of that matter, we were inclined to allow the petitions.‑

7. After carefully considering the arguments advanced at the bar, we are satisfied that this Court has no jurisdiction to consider the validity of the impugned orders. We would, therefore, dismiss the Writ Petitions with no order as to costs. K.B.A. Petitions dismissed.