' Order dated 29-10-2003, passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Hafizabad (respondent) whereby land situated in different villages of District Hafizabad was allotted by him in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2 has been assailed by the Province of Punjab through Member Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, that the officer acted illegally and without lawful authority in doling out valuable land. Through Writ Petition No,68-R of 2004, order of same date passed by the same officer in almost identical circumstances, has been assailed which will stand disposed of through this judgment.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the grounds urged in the writ petition and contends that respondent No,3, who passed the order impugned has acted without jurisdiction in the matter inasmuch as he assumed the jurisdiction illegally as no proceedings were "pending" before him in terms of subsection (2) of section 2 of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act XIV of 1975. It is contended that in view of notification dated 12-11-2001, respondent No,3 could at the most be treated the Notified Officer for the District of Hafizabad whereas the matter pertained to persons (respondents) whose claim related to and was pending in Sialkot District and competent authority. It is contended that in entertaining the application of respondents and assuming jurisdiction in the matter and making allotment of land through the impugned order he acted wholly without jurisdiction. It is further contended that the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No,120-R of 2003 and Writ Petition 129-R of 2003 has been misconstrued as no proceedings had been remanded by this Court to him and the writ petition was disposed of only with the observation that the application be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. It is further contended that if at all, respondents were entitled to land under the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 26-10-1976, it was the land comprising RL-II Khata Nos.419/421 of Mauza Kurial and no other land. Relies upon Muhammad Ramzan and others v.
Member (Rev)/CSS and others 1997 SCM R 1635; Ali Muhammad through Legal Heirs and others v.
Chief Settlement Commissioner and others 2001 SCM R 1822; Government of Punjab, Colonies Department, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Yaqoob PLD 2002 SC 5; Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member, Board of Revenue (S&R Wing), Punjab, Lahore v. Akhtar Munir and 6 others PLD 2003 SC 603 and Government of Punjab through Member Board of Revenue, Lahore v. Umar and another 2002 YLR 3363, in support of his contention that in law no proceedings were duly pending before respondent No,3 as contemplated by section 2(2) of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act XIV of 1975.
3. The learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2, not only objects to the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the Member Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner cannot file such a petition but also that learned counsel for the petitioner had no valid authority to prosecute the same. It is contended that the respondents were entitled to allotment of land in view of the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 26-10-1976 passed on a Mukhbari application in which the respondents were also party. According to him any available land in the Province could be allotted by the Notified Officer of the relevant District due to pendency of unsatisfied claim of a person.
4. It was on 14-7-2003/15-7-2003 that applications were moved by respondents before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Hafizabad for allotment of "alternate" land in satisfaction of unsatisfied units pursuant to order dated 26-10-1976 passed by the then Chief Settlement Commissioner. On filing of that application, Writ Petition No,120-R of 2003 and Writ Petition No,129-R of 2003 were filed for a direction to him to dispose of the said application. The order passed by this Court on 3-10-2003 in Writ Petition No,120-R of 2003 was as under:-- "Application dated 14-7-2003, is stated to have been made by the petitioners for the redressal of their grievance which has remained undisposed of by the respondent.
2. Let the respondent consider that application and dispose it of in accordance with law. It may be clarified that this order will not be treated as a direction to proceed in a particular manner.
' The writ petition is disposed of accordingly."
' The perusal of the above order shows that the object of the same was merely that the application stated to have been made may be disposed of in accordance with law. It cannot be construed by any stretch of imagination as if the matter was remanded to the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Hafizabad by this Court. It neither conferred any jurisdiction upon him if he A did not possess under the law nor he was directed to allot the land. Before assuming jurisdiction he had to consider the various aspects of the matter including as to whether the matter was pending before him in terms of section 2(2) of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act XIV Of 1975. Reference to provisions of subsections (2) and (3) of section 2 Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act XIV of 1975 may be appropriate at this juncture:-- "(2) Upon the repeal of the aforesaid Acts and Regulations, all proceedings which, immediately before such repeal, may be pending before the authorities appointed thereunder shall stand transferred for final disposal to such officers as may be notified by the Provincial Government in the official Gazette and all cases decided by the Supreme Court or a High Court after such repeal which would have been remanded to any such authority in -the absence of such repeal shall be remanded to the officers notified as aforesaid.
(3) Any proceedings transferred or remanded to an officer in pursuance of subsection (2) shall be disposed of by him in accordance with the provisions of the Act or Regulation hereby repealed to which the proceedings relate. (underling by me due to relevancy and emphasis).
'It is abundantly clear from the perusal of above provisions of law that only proceedings (1) which were pending indeed at the time of repeal of the laws stood transferred to the Notified Officer for final disposal or (2) those remanded by the Supreme Court or a High Court were to be decided by such officer. In the instant case neither any proceedings were pending at the time of the repeal of the evacuee laws nor stood transferred to Executive District Officer (Revenue) in which he could pass any lawful order, for the matter had been remanded by any Court to him as contemplated by subsections (2) and (3) of section 2 of the Act. The assumption of jurisdiction by him on the application made by respondents was, therefore, contrary to law and unwarranted.
' Moreover he had to consider the import of the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 26-10-1976 under which the respondents were claiming allotment. It is evident from the perusal of order dated 26-10-1976 that the Mukhbari application of so many persons against the allotment of Muhammad Afzal Baig had succeeded and it was observed that:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' If at all the respondents could claim any allotment that was qua the land which was cancelled and resumed from Muhammad Afzal Baig. There had never been any order passed for ~ allotment of any other/ alternative land in favour of respondents by any competent authority. They, therefore, could not lay claim for allotment to any other land except that which had been resumed and cancelled from the Khata of Muhammad Afzal Baig as mentioned above. The very basis of the applications made by them in the year 2403 long (27 years) after the year of 1976 lacked any merit.
Finding considerable substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Executive District Officer (Revenue), Hafizabad had assumed the jurisdiction in the matter illegally and without jurisdiction, the order impugned is held unsustainable in law, as indeed there were no pending proceedings before him in terms of section 2 of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act XIV of 1975.
'Insofar as the objection of the learned counsel for respondents qua the competency of the petition is concerned, the same has no merit and substance inasmuch as after the repeal of evacuee laws, the land vested in the Provincial Government under section 3 thereof. It is the Provincial Government, which has filed this petition through the Member Board of Revenue/ Chief Settlement Commissioner to which no exception can be taken.
' In view of the above, order impugned dated 29-10-2003, whereby Executive District Officer (Revenue), Hafizabad purported to make allotment of land in favour of respondents is declared as one without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Both these petitions are accepted accordingly with no order as to costs.