MUHAMMAD JEHANGIER ARSHAD, J.---Through this constitutional petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of order dated 12-8-1998 passed by respondent No.1 and the order dated 15-8-1998 passed on Mutation No.318 by respondent No.2 with the following background:-- ' Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar respondent No.3 moved an application on 25-4-1998 to the District Collector, Lodhran complaining that she was owner of House No.53, Ward No.4, Kehror Pakka City, which was allotted to her mother Mst. Mubarak Bibi and proprietary rights of the said house were also conferred on Mst. Mubarak Bibi, on whose death the respondent No.3, Mst. Shahnaz Akhtar along With her sister Mst. Roshan Akhtar became owner of the said house and that Muhammad Sharif petitioner illegally occupied the said house by preparing a forged RL-H, whereas, the said house was never transferred to the petitioner. It was therefore, prayed in the said application that Sharif Dogar petitioner be dispossessed from the said house and possession be got transferred to her and her sister. The said application was marked to the lower staff by the District A Collector for inquiry and the Inquiry Report was submitted by Ghazi Aman Ullah Khan, Magistrate Ist Class on 25-7-1998. On receipt of report, the District Collector vide order dated 12-8-1998 held that petitioner was guilty of getting wrong and unauthorized entry in the Revenue Record in his favour. The District Collector, therefore, directed that entry in the name of the petitioner in the Revenue Record be scored off. This order of the District Collector has been assailed through this constitutional petition.
2. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the said order was passed without any notice or affording him opportunity of hearing thus, they have been condemned unheard; that after the repeal of Settlement Laws the District Collector had no jurisdiction to take up the matter and direct correction of entry in RL-II; that he learned District Collector had no authority to declare the petitioners as unauthorized occupants as property in dispute was neither colony property nor owned by the Government and the private dispute between the parties could not have been taken up by the District Collector. It is finally argued that the matter between the parties under section 145, Cr.P.C. Is still pending and the same could only be decided by the concerned Magistrate.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Athar Rehman Khan, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.3 and 4, has vehemently opposed this petition by contending that petitioners forcibly occupied the house owned by respondents and also committed forgery in RL-II which had rightly been corrected by the District Collector.
4. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant record with their assistance.
5. Admittedly, the impugned order was passed without any notice to the petitioners or affording him opportunity of hearing. It appears that on the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, the learned District Collector proceeded to pass the impugned order, without issuing notice to the parties and affording them opportunity of hearing. A perusal of the impugned order further reveals that same was passed without application of mind. Nowhere it has been pointed out by the District Collector as to whether he had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint filed by respondent No.3. Admittedly, the property in dispute is neither owned by the Provincial Government nor is a colony land, as such; the District Collector had no jurisdiction to resolve the private dispute between the parties. The District Collector had also no jurisdiction to declare the petitioner as unauthorized occupant, which could only be decided by the Civil Court. Even otherwise, after repeal of Settlement Laws, no findings could be recorded by the District Collector about the genuineness or otherwise of the entry in RL-II.
6. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12-8-1998 passed by the District Collector, Lodhran is declared as having been passed without lawful authority and as such is set aside. If so advised, the respondent No.3 may resort to remedy by way of approaching Civil Court for obtaining possession of the property in dispute on the basis of her title, in accordance with law. There shall however, be no order as to costs.