' This order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 1119/R/77 and 358/R/78 as these challenge the orders of the Border Area Committee dated 14th of July 1977 and 15th of January 1978 respectively.
2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that after the repeal of all Evacuee, Rehabilitation, and Settlement Laws by Act XIV of 1975, there is no jurisdiction left in any authority to intermeddle in the rights of displaced persons settled on lands, houses and shops etc. Which had already come to vest in them absolutely by operation of laws. Properties not so disposed of were to vest in the Provincial Government and were to be disposed of under the repealing law. The Repealing Act had come into force from 1-7-1974. This being so, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Border Area Committee had no jurisdiction in 1977 over the corpus of the property and, consequently, could pass no order in relation thereto.
Learned counsel for the petitioner also raised some other contentions which are not necessary for the decision of these cases, the one he especially stressed was regarding the composition of the Border Area Committee and in that behalf he has referred to a leave granting order in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No, 459/R/77 dated 22-4-1978 but this by itself cannot take the case of the petitioner any further as the order of High Court was adverse to them.
3. Learned counsel for the Border Area Committee has strenuously contended that notwithstanding the repeal of Evacuee, Rehabilitation and Settlement Laws, the Border Area Committee continues to exist by virtue of Martial Law Regulation No, 9 which is an independent law. The learned counsel has referred to Muhammad Latif and 5 others v. Border Area Committee and 2 others (1).
4. A large segment of the society and considerable number of public Officers have been busy in the settlement of displaced persons uprooted from their homes by the Hindus in the year 1947.
These operations have gone on for more than quarter of a century and it is common knowledge that not only the displaced persons have been made to run from pillar to post and led to all vices but quite a number of public authorities dealing with the matter have been polluted and their hands soiled. When most of the work of rehabilitation awl settlement had been completed, mischief mongers and undesired people started the ball rolling all over again towards the end of the quarter of the century. The whole thing had become stinking. There was hardly any person who had the knowledge or the experience and did not realize that this must come to an end, those who have been settled must be left in peace, those who have got nothing must bear their loss. That was the only way to let the settled people remain in peace and avoid stinking corruption. The highest Legislature in the land, the National Assembly of Pakistan, passed a law, which was assented to by the President repealing all Settlement Laws, namely :
(1) the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 (III of 1956), (2) the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956 (XL1I of 1956), (3) the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 (XII of 1957), (4) the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (XXVIII of 1958),
(5) the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 (XLVII of 1958), (6) the Scrutiny of Claims (Evacuee Property) Regulation, 1971 and (7) the Price of Evacuee Property and Public Dues (Recovery) Regulation, 1971.
' There was and there is no doubt whatsoever about the intention of the Legislature. In passing it may be noticed that notwithstanding this enactment, persons dealing with the matter still see how in the garb of pending proceedings, forgeries are being committed in public record by ante-dating applications and corruption going around at quite a speed. Leaving this aside, with the repeal of the Evacuee, Rehabilitation and Settlement (1) PLD 1978 SC 27 0 Laws, all authorities created thereunder ceased to exist, for the simple reason that with the disappearance of the creator, created beings also lost their entities. Now the Border Area Committee was created under Martial Law Regulation No, 9 which was to consist of a representative of the Rehabilitation Commissioner and another of the Pakistan Army.
' The Rehabilitation Commissioner has ceased to exist with the repeal of the Rehabilitation Act under which he was created. It would be a remarkable feat of more than a Masiha to bring forth a representative from a deceased being. More need not be said in this behalf as the matter is before their Lordships of the Supreme Court. The authority of the Border Area Committee under para. 10 of the aforesaid Regulation was that "the committee shall scrutinize all allotments of evacuee property within any border area and may, if after such scrutiny it is satisfied that any allotment was made to a person not eligible for allotment under the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme including the Border Scheme, cancel the allotment and direct the allottee to surrender forthwith the property to the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner within whose jurisdiction the property is situated and the decision of the committee in this regard shall be final." Now the Border Area Committee could scrutinize allotments of "evacuee property". "Evacuee property" was defined in the Regulation to have the same meaning as in the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act and the latter Statute defined it "any property in which an evacuee has any right or interest." Now what right can one expect that the evacuee still has in the land in Pakistan which he left some 30 years ago? Can one recognize that the Hindu or Sikh who has left Pakistan and settled in India still has right or interest in land situated in Pakistan? And if one were to so recognize, would he be prepared to ,surrender it to the rightful owner if the latter were to claim it? It was all very well after the creation of the country to refer to a property left by an evacuee as an evacuee property. But now after the evacuation of its owner some 30 years ago, what right or interest is left in the owner to have a right or interest in the property, so that the property be called as evacuee property. Moreover, all evacuee land was acquired by Notifications under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 which provided that on the publication of the Notifications "the right, title and interest of any evacuee or persons claiming through him in the land specified in the Notification shall, with effect from the date of such publication, be extinguished and the land shall vest wholly and absolutely in the Central Government or as the case may be, the Provincial Government free from all encumbrances." What could be more explicit than to say that the rights of the evacuees have been extinguished? And that the land has been vested wholly and absolutely in the relevant Government of Pakistan. Still to call such property as evacuee property would amount to rendering the statutory words meaningless and redundant. It is true that for certain purposes properties acquired under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 have been referred to as evacuee properties but that was for descriptive purposes. It has no normative effect. Under para 10 of the Martial Law. Regulation No, 9 the jurisdiction of the Border Area Committee operated over the "evacuee property". Now if a property has ceased to be "evacuee" for some reason or other, say by the will of the Legislature and vested in the relevant Governments in Pakistan, then in that event, it is obvious that the Border Area Committee would have no jurisdiction to operate over such property.
' The reliance of the learned counsel for the respondent that notwithstanding the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the jurisdiction of the Border Area Committee to review the allotments made by it was maintained by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Latif referred to above may now be adverted to. The facts of the case were that Muhammad Latif, etc. Had come to the High Court that an adverse order had been passed by the Border Area Committee against them without hearing them. The petition was allowed. The then respondents applied to the High Court that the case should have been remanded for hearing of the writ petitioners. It was so directed. Against this direction, the writ petitioners agitated that it was made in their absence. It was found that since the petitioners' petition was allowed on the ground that they were not heard, it was obvious that they had to be heard and if it was so directed subsequently, there was no justification to complain. No doubt, in support of their claim, the petitioners agitated that after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the Border Area Committee was not competence to review allotments earlier made and their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that "we are clearly of the view that the West Pakistan Border Area Rehabilitation (M. L. R. 9) is an independent enactment quite distinct from the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and the repeal of the latter enactment does not affect the operation of the former in any way. Hence we find no force in this contention."
From this observation it is quite clear that their Lordships were of the view that the West Pakistan Border Area Regulation (M. L. R. 9) is an independent enactment distinct from the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. But from this it does not follow that Martial Law Regulation No, 9 shall operate over evacuee property which has ceased to be such over which it exercised jurisdiction. As stated above, the Martial Law Regulation No, 9 vide para. 10 provided that a Border Area Committee may scrutinize allotments of "evacuee property". The evacuee properties have ceased to be evacuee long ago, the law under which those were defined as evacuee properties or under which those were referred to as evacuee, all have been repealed. All such properties vested in the relevant Governments by operation of law and formed part of Compensation Pools from where those were transferred or allotted and came to vest absolutely in the transferees or the allottees, again, by operation of laws. Whatever was not so disposed of and was "available" came to vest in the Provincial Governments to be disposable under Schemes to be framed by the concerned Board of Revenue vide the repealing Act, XIV of 1975. Therefore, it is no use, nor, possible to follow the ghosts of the departed souls. These have been buried by the debris of the time and cremated by the laws of the land. This being so, I am quite sure and clear that with the repeal of all Evacuee, Rehabilitation and Settlement Laws, there are no more evacuee properties and authorities who exercised jurisdiction thereon have also ceased to exist. Properties transferred or allotted vest absolutely in favour of the transferees or allottees. Pending proceedings and "available properties" have to be disposed of by the "notified" authorities under the latest law in the Statute Book, i. e. Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975-Act XIV of 1975.
This being so, the impugned orders having been passed not by the notified authorities under section 2(2) of the aforesaid Act are declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The notified authorities under the aforesaid Act, if the facts justify and they have the jurisdiction, may take such action as may be permissible under the law. In these circumstances of the cases, the parties shall bear their own costs.