' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--- This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution has been directed against the judgment, dated 18-11-2004 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in a constitution petition arising out of the order passed by District Officer (Revenue) exercising the powers of Notified Officer, Lahore under Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal)
Act, 1975, by virtue of which the Property bearing No,S-85-R/7/9 commonly known as Cooper Hostel situated in Chauburji Chowk, Bahawalpur Road, Lahore, was declared non-evacuee.
2. The facts briefly in the background are that the property, subject-matter of dispute was auctioned on 16-7-1945 for the satisfaction of a money decree passed by the Civil Court at Lahore.
The property was purchased by Muhammad Ismail, predecessor-in-interest of private respondents and the sale certificate was issued by the Court on 29-7-1946. The property involving the evacuee interest was taken over by the rehabilitation authorities in 1954 but the predecessor- in-interest of respondents by making payment of evacuee encumbrance through compensation book, satisfied the charge on the property. Subsequently, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner considering it an evacuee property, transferred an area of 5 Kanals and 2 Marlas to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner under Settlement Scheme No,VI in 1968 which was later confirmed by the Notified Officer, vide order, dated 24-12-1986. The above order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner/ Notified Officer was upheld by a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court vide judgment, dated 7-3-1996 in a writ petition and this judgment of the High Court was set aside by this Court vide judgment, dated 9-6-2000 passed in Civil Appeals Nos.1245, 1369, 1370 of 1996 and Civil Appeals Nos.2323 and 2324 of 1997 wherein the case was remanded to the A.D.C.(G), Lahore/Notified Officer with the following direction:-- "In view of the submissions and statements made by the learned counsel for the parties that the parties were not given due opportunity of hearing and were not allowed to produce evidence in support of their contentions, thereby they were condemned unheard which resulted in the miscarriage of justice, consequently the impugned orders, dated 24-12-1986 and dated 7-3-1996 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Lahore/Notified Officer and by the Lahore High Court, respectively, except the finding with regard to portion of land from disputed land transferred by Settlement Authorities to late Malik Ghulam Ahmad succeeded by Malik Naveed Ahmad, are set aside and the case is remanded to Notified Officer/Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Lahore with the directions to dispose of the matter with regard to the remaining disputed land within three months from the date of receipt of this order in terms of formulated points hereinafter mentioned and the parties would be at liberty to produce the evidence within one month, if necessary, the matter may be heard on day-to-day basis. Following points are formulated for the Notified Officer who would decide and dispose of the case in accordance with law:--
(i) What is the location and situation of the property in dispute for the purpose of its market value?
(ii) What was the property which came to the share of judgment-debtor after the partition of the entire trust property and was the same liable to be attached, and whether before the attachment the requirements of law were complied with and whether the objections of the judgment-debtors to the attachment and sale through auction were legally and authorizedly withdrawn and disposed of?
(iii) Which landed property was sold through auction and whether the sale through auction was made in accordance with law, if not, what would be its effect?
(iv) What was the evacuee encumbrances/charges/interest over the property of the judgment- debtors and whether the amount of evacuee interest/encumbrances and sale consideration of auctioned land could have been satisfied by making payment of the same through the compensation book?
(v) Whether the auction purchaser acquired any right title or interest in the property claimed by him under the law and whether the subsequent purchasers/transferees viz. Haji Muhammad Yusuf and others acquired any right, title or interest in the disputed property under the law?
(vi) Whether the sale certificate and subsequent amendment made therein were made and obtained by fraud, forgery and misrepresentation?
3. The Notified Officer, after hearing the parties at length and having made detailed scrutiny of the facts decided the matter with the conclusion on the crucial points incorporated in the judgment of this Court as under:-- "(iv) What was the evacuee encumbrances/charges/interest over the property of the judgment- debtors and whether the amount of evacuee interest/encumbrances and sale consideration of auctioned land could have been satisfied by making payment of the same through the compensation book? The evacuee encumbrances/charges/interest on the property was determined to be Rs,83,000 by His Lordship Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad Jan, Judge of Lahore High Court/the then Custodian of Evacuee Property vide order, dated 19-8-1961, which was adjusted from the deferred payment of compensation No,2265441 of Haji Muhammad Yousaf and clearance certificate was issued by Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 28-8-1963. In pursuance of the same, a letter dated 2-11-1963 was issued by the Settlement Department declaring the property as non-evacuee.
(v) Whether the auction purchaser acquired any right, title or interest in the property claimed by him under the law and whether the subsequent purchasers/transferees viz. Haji Muhammad Yousuf and others acquired any right, title or interest in the disputed property under the law?
' As per documents placed on file, the land in question bearing Khasras Nos.6747, 6749, 6750, 6746, 6751 and 6752 measuring 19 Kanals, 19 Marlas and 154 sq.Ft. Having been auctioned on 12-7-1945 by the Court, Haji Muhammad Ismail, the auction purchaser, on payment of Rs,48,000, in cash became absolute owner on the date of auction i,e, 16-7-1946. Haji Muhammad Yousaf is the subsequent purchaser who entered into an agreement with Haji Muhammad Ismail (his Samdhi) and acquired title of the property under the law.
(vi) Whether the sale certificate and subsequent amendment made therein were made and obtained by fraud, forgery and misrepresentation?
' The question that whether the sale certificate and subsequent amendments made therein were made and obtained by fraud, forgery and misrepresentation can only be determined by the successor-in-office of the Civil Court which issued the sale certificate in proceedings under section 12(2), C.P.C. Even if for the sake of arguments, the sale certificate is a forged document, the aggrieved party was entitled to file a suit for cancellation of document under section 39. Specific Relief Act, in the Civil Court, as the person in whose favor it was issued and his successor-in- interest acquired valuable rights in the disputed property on the basis of it. This is the only available remedy as the criminal proceedings on the allegation of preparation of forged document already stand abated due to the death of the accused person. Hence, the document is still in field, which generates valuable rights and District Officer (Revenue)/Notified Officer has no jurisdiction to declare that the sale certificate which has operated to create civil rights was obtained by fraud, forgery and misrepresentation before the Civil Court. Moreover, the Court sale certificate is more than 30 years old and presumption of truth is attached with it as per Article 100, Qanutn-e- Shahadat.
' As per documents available on file, the corrections appear to have been made on the Court sale certificate by the orders of the then Sub-Judge 1st Class, Lahore dated 15-8-1952 under his signatures and stamp."
4. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the virus of the above order of Notified Officer which was dismissed by a learned Judge in Chambers in the High Court with the observation that the petitioner being not an aggrieved person in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition in the matter.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in consequence to the application moved by Malik Ghulam Ahmed, father of the petitioner, the property was resumed by the Rehabilitation Authorities and in the subsequent litigation, said Ghulam Ahmed and auction purchaser Muhammad Ibrahim, predecessor-in-interest of respondent No,2, were the contesting parties before the Settlement Authorities, therefore, petitioner had locus standi to file the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner was that on the information of his father, the hidden evacuee property was resumed by the Rehabilitation Authorities, therefore, he was entitled for the transfer of the entire property and having direct claim for transfer of the property, was an aggrieved person in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution. Learned counsel argued that the learned Judge in the High Court instead of attending the real controversy regarding the evacuee character of the property and deciding the question relating to the claim of the parties in the property, dismissed the writ petition on technical ground. Learned counsel for the respondents-caveators, on the other hand, argued that initially the property was leased out by Muhammad Ibrahim, predecessor-in-interest of .Respondents to Malik Ghulam Ahmed, father of the petitioner which was at one stage, resumed by the Rehabilitation Department treating it as evacuee property but on satisfaction of evacuee encumbrance, it acquired the status of non-evacuee property. However, the father of petitioner in connivance with the settlement staff, managed the transfer of an area of 5 Kanals, 2 Marlas under Rehabilitation Scheme No,V1. The learned counsel has argued that on redemption of the mortgage, the custodian declared the property free from all evacuee encumbrances and thereafter, it was never treated as an evacuee property and the High Court neither could give the declaration sought by the petitioner nor he had any locus standi to maintain the writ petition against the order of Notified Officer.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the relevant record with their assistance. The controversy involved in the matter related to the character of property which was initially taken over by the Rehabilitation Authorities in 1954 but the custodian, without declaring it evacuee property, having determined its character as mortgaged property, redeemed the mortgage on the payment of mortgage money and treated it as non-evacuee property. In consequence thereto, except an area of 5 Kanals and 2 Marlas already transferred to the father of petitioner, the remaining property was excluded from the purview of evacuee laws.
The Notified Officer in the light of points formulated in the judgment of this Court concluded in his order, as under:--- "In view of the above discussion, the petitioner Mr. Naveed Ahmad Malik could not establish that the sale of property in question in favor of Haji Muhammad Ismail and subsequently in favor of Haji Muhammad Yousaf was as a result of forged and fake Court sale certificate. It has been further proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the property in dispute is legal and free from any evacuee encumbrances and hence non-evacuee as already mentioned in answer to the points formulated by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan."
7. The careful examination of the matter would show that the conclusion drawn by the Notified Officer was quite in accordance with law as the property was never treated as an evacuee property and we having considered the matter in the light of nature of dispute, have not been able to find out any substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the property involving evacuee interest, was liable to he transferred under evacuee laws. The Rehabilitation Department due to the evacuee interest, resumed the property but we find that on the payment of mortgage money and satisfaction of the evacuee encumbrance the mortgage was redeemed and in consequence thereto, the property was no more be treated as evacuee property. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Department having not challenged (?) the order of Notified Officer conceded its non-evacuee character whereas the petitioner sought its transfer as informer under Settlement Laws and we in the light of the facts in the background, are of the considered view that the High Court could not undertake an exercise of holding factual inquiry to ascertain the character of property and changed its status of non-evacuee by declaring it an evacuee property. The Notified Officer after holding a detail inquiry, concluded that the property was not declared as an evacuee property at any stage and learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show us that the finding arrived at by the Notified Officer regarding non-evacuee character of property, was suffering from misreading or non-reading of evidence or the conclusion drawn by him was contrary to law and facts of the case. We having considered the matter in detail, have not been able to find out any substance in this petition and notwithstanding the objection of the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the writ petition before the High Court, the petitioner had no case even on merits calling for interference of the High Court.
8. In the light of foregoing discussion, we do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly, dismissed. Leave is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.