1982 PLP 2186 (CLC)

Z. H. Raja and Abid Hasan Minto for Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Ch. Amjad Khan for Respondent No. 3. . Respondent No. 4 : Ex parte. Dates of hearing: 21st, 22nd .November ; 5th and 6th ‑December, 1978. This order will dispose of Settlement Appeal No. 7/69 and Settlement ‑Appeal No. 3/69 as these are directed against the same order of the learned Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi, dated 13‑6‑1968.

2. Relevant facts are that over Khasra No. 507 (here is .a super. structure of Kashmir Flour Mills bearing No. A/329‑to 35 and a godown confined to No.. A/335 and part of A/334. A reference was made under section 4 (3) of the Dis‑placed, Persons‑ (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 by the Evacuee Property Trust Board, West Pakistan, Lahore claiming a declaration to the effect that the aforesaid was an evacuee trust property. The learned Settlement and‑Rehabilita tion Commissioner found that the land was Evacuee Trust Property, but as regards the superstructure, held that "the main evidence relied upon by the petitioner in the form of a lease deed Exh. P. 1 would by itself show from its perusal that the superstructure over the land would continue to belong to the lessees until and unless it had been paid for" lie‑answered the reference by declaring that the land was evacuee trust property but the superstructure was simply evacuee. This is ,vide order dated 13‑6‑1968. This order was challenged by the Evacuee Property Trust Board through Settlement Appeal No. 7/69 on 6‑1‑1969 for . the relief ,that the super structure should also have been declared evacuee trust property and not as simple evacuee property. One Mian. Muhammad Sailiq, an ‑occupant of the superstructure, has also challenged the aforesaid order of the learned Settlement Commissioner dated 13‑6‑1968 for the same relief ,that the superstructure should also be declared as evacuee trust property vesting in the Evacuee Property Trust Board through Settlement Appeal No. 3 of 1969. 3. 'During the pendency of these appeals, Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act 1975 (Act.No. XIII of. 1975) was enacted and gazetted on 25th of January, 1975. The Deputy Adminis trator, Evacuee Trust Property, Rawalpindi brought .a petition under section 8 of the Act X111 of 1975 before the Chairman. Various properties, including the one, i.e. the superstructures in dispute, formed subject matter of the adjudication. The learned Chairman observed that the property consists of eleven khasra Nos. on the Ratta Road, Rawalpindi and measures 25 kanals and 4 marlas. This area comprises the Kashmir Flour Mills and the portion measuring 13 marlas occupied by Shamsher Ali and Hassan Khan. In case of the Mills, the dispute is between Mr. Iqbal Mahmood and Muhammad Sadiq. The Settlement Commissioner has already in his competent capacity by his order dated 13‑6‑1968, decided that the land is evacuee trust and the superstructure is simple evacuee property. That issue was finally settled in 1968 and no remedy lies to any, aggrieved party in this Court. According to that decision Mr. Iqbal Mahmood is the correct transferee of the superstruc ture and the correct lessee of this Board so far as the land is concerned and should be paying this Board reasonable rates of lease money". This is vide order dated 16‑6‑1977. This order has been challenged by Mian Muhammad Sadiq by means of a revision petition under section 17 of the aforesaid Act XII1 of 1976 before the Federal Government which stands admitted and is pending adjudication. In this revision petition Mian lqbal Muhammad as well as Deputy Administrator Evacuee Property Trust Board, Rawalpindi are parties as respondents.

4. From the facts just mentioned, it would appear that the order of the learned Settlement Commissioner dated 12‑6‑1968, challenged in these appeals has been subject‑matter of adjudication by the Chairman, Evacuee Property Trust Board, in his order dated 16‑6‑1977 and this order is subject‑matter of revision petition pending before the Federal Government. In these proceedings, the parties are the same as arrayed in these appeals. The Federal Government in its revisional jurisdiction under section 17 of the Act XIII of 1975 can pass any order as it "thinks fit". Provisions of this Act XII1 of 1975 are to prevail and have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of such law". vide section 31 of the Act. Therefore, it would follow that because of the subsequent proceedings, after the order appealed against, which are being carried under the newly enacted law and are sub judice, these appeals have become infructuous. These are, therefore, dismissed as such but in the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. M'Y'M' Order accordingly.