1986 PLP 547 (MLD)

‑‑‑S.2 (2)‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑ Notified Officer authorized to hear matters pending before Deputy Settlement Commissioner and Additional Settlement Commissioner in original jurisdiction‑‑Exercise of revisional jurisdiction by such notified officer, held, would not be warranted by law. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2 (2)‑‑Exercise of revisional jurisdiction by notified officer not authorized by notification‑‑Exercise of such jurisdiction, held, would render itself to be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Revision petition would be deemed pending and required to be dealt with according to law. Khaliq Ahmad Ansari for Petitioner. Muhammad Salam Shaikh for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1986. The dispute in this case relates to Shop No.S.I.‑104‑S‑25, situate on Shah Abul Maali Road, Lahore. It was formerly evacuee property. After Independence, it was occupied by the petitioner. On 2‑11‑1959 he submitted a C.S. Form for its transfer. By an order, dated 15‑3‑1960 he was granted a P. T.O. in respect of this shop. Presumably for the reason that he failed to pay the transfer price, the shop was resumed and was put to auction. The highest bid was given by respondent No.3. Subsequently, the auction proceedings were confirmed.

2. After the auction had been held and before it was confirmed the petitioner moved an application before the Additional Settlement Commissioner wherein he stated that he had paid the entire price of the shop and that it had been auctioned due to some mistake. The Additional Settlement Commissioner sent this application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for examination. He also directed that in the meantime the auction proceedings should not be confirmed. Apparently, the later part of the order was ignored. However that may be, by an order, dated 21‑12‑1970 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejected the application of the petitioner. From the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner. During the pendency of this appeal the relevant law was amended and the appeal was treated as an application for revision. For a long time this revision too remained pending till the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 came into force. Under section 2(2) of the Act the revision petition was to be decided by an officer to be notified by the Provincial Government. After a notification had been issued by the Government in this regard, the revision petition was taken up by Kh. Abdul Sattar, Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore. By his order, dated 31‑8‑1976 he dismissed the revision petition.

3. In this constitutional petition the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order made by Kh. Abdul Satter. It is contended that he was not a notified officer within the meaning of subsection (2) of section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. He has shown me the notification issued by the Provincial Government under section 2(2), ibid. In this notification Kh. Abdul Sattar has been notified for the purposing of hearing matters pending before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and those before the Additional Settlement Commissioner in exercise of original jurisdiction. The revision petition of the petitioner did not fall under any of these two categories. Apparently, Kh. Abdul Sattar was not competent to hear the said revision petition. I would accordingly declare his order to be of no legal effect. The revision petition should still be treated as pending and disposed of in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs in this writ petition. A.A. Petition allowed.