1994 PLP 2185 (MLD)

SYED HAIDER ALI PIRZADA, J.

This Constitutional petition calls in question orders dated 25-8-1986 and 9-8-1987 passed by the respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 whereby the PTD was cancelled. The facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that residential house bearing Custodian No.D/211, corresponding to City Survey No.1318 1319, situated at Shevgi Road Mirpurkhas was acquired as an evacuee property under Compensation Pool and made available for transfer under the Settlement Schemes framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The above house was put to auction on 21-3-1960 and it was purchased by Yasin a claimant displaced person as a highest bidder for Rs.2,500 only. The auction was confirmed on 18-7-1960, by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The auction purchaser Yasin thereafter deposited the Compensation Book No.1990, dated 16-4-1960, containing a balance deferred amount of Rs.2,268 only for adjustment of the available amount against the price of the above house. The said Yasin submitted documents for the issuance of PTD but all the documents including the office file were misplaced and not traceable in the office of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Mirpurkhas. Ultimately the Deputy Commissioner issued a memo dated 6-3-1970, asking Yasin to produce original documents. The documents were produced and the file was reconstituted and thereafter the amount was adjusted from the compensation pool on 9-4-1970 and the balance amount of Rs. 232 was recovered in cash. Ultimately P.T.O. was issued on 21-5-1974 in favour of the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that for the first time in March, 1979, , the respondent No.3 filed -application under section 8(2) of Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975), before the respondent No.2 for declaration that the house in dispute is an Evacuee Trust Property and for cancellation of P.T.O. The petitioner contested the said application, filed a written statement and produced documentary evidence including City Survey Extracts before respondent No.2. The petitioner also submitted written arguments but the respondent No.2, without referring to the arguments and the documents produced by the petitioner, passed an order, dated 25-8-1988 and declared that the house in dispute is an Evacuee Trust Property and cancelled the PTD issued in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved against the order, dated 25-8-1986 passed by the respondent No.2, filed revision before the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 dismissed the revision on 9-8-1987 by a short order on the ground that the PTD was issued against the payment of cash price and not against verified claims. The petitioner being aggrieved against the order, dated 9-8-1987 passed by the respondent No.1, filed this present petition. Mr. Hassan Mahmood Baig, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order in a perfunctory manner. On the other hand Mr. S. Jehangir Hussain Shah, Advocate appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 has submitted that the impugned order is not in a perfunctory manner. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record and the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the property in dispute was purchased for total price of Rs.2,

500. The auction was confirmed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. It is also not in dispute that the auction-purchaser Yasin, thereafter deposited the Compensation Book No.1990, 16-4-1970 containing a balance deferred amount of Rs.2,268 only for adjustment of the available amount against the price .of the house in question. As such a sum of Rs.2,268 was adjusted from the Compensation Book No.1990 on 9-4-1970 and the balance amount of Rs.232 only was recovered in cash on 21-5-1974. This evidence was, available on the record. It seems that the learned respondent No.1 has not applied his mind to the facts of the case and has ignored material evidence available on the record. We have perused the impugned order. A perusal thereof would show that it is not a speaking order. The rights of the petitioner who had spent a huge amount on the construction of the building had not, at all, been adverted to. An order which does not deal with the merits of the case and does not indicate that it was passed after applying mind to the relevant facts and merits of the case, cannot be termed as a valid order at all. Such an order, being contrary to the norms of justice, would be deemed to be without jurisdiction. An order, whether it is passed by a judicial Tribunal or quasi-judicial Tribunal or even by an executive authority, must indicate that it was passed after considering all the relevant facts and respective claims of the parties. An arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction, in flagrant disregard of law and principles of natural justice, is tantamount to denial of justice. Therefore the impugned order is void and of no legal consequence. Learned counsel for the respondents has fairly conceded that this aspect has not been taken into consideration by respondent No. l. For the aforesaid reasons, this Constitution petition is accepted and the impugned order of respondent No.1 is set aside. The revision petition is deemed to be pending before respondent No.1 and we direct the respondent No.1 to decide the same afresh after affording full opportunities to the parties. In these circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs. H.B.T./M-1979/K Petition accepted.