' SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.- Briefly stated the facts of the petition are that the petitioner purchased the suit property from Abdur Rashid who through open auction purchased the property on 11-6- 1974 from Settlement Department. PTO No.30068 dated 22-1-1976 was issued to the predecessor of respondents Nos.4 to 11, who was in occupation of the property and was dispossessed in execution of a decree in the suit for possession filed by the petitioner. Predecessor of respondents Nos.4 to 11 moved an application before Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board, Lahore who cancelled the allotment without hearing the petitioner through order dated 10-9-1980. The Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha refused to'cancel the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner and rejected the application of respondent No.3 vide order dated 14-12-1981. The petitioner was dispossessed forcibly on 26-3- 1983, against which the petitioner filed a suit against respondents Nos.4 to 11 which was dismissed on 24-10-1987 and appeal against the dismissal of the suit met the same fate of dismissal on 15- 12-19.88. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal of the suit by the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court in Writ Petition No.20-R of 1989 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 22-1-1989. The petitioner then fifed a suit for declaration which, was dismissed on 19-4-1993. The appeal as well as the revision petition failed to bring any fruitful result to the petitioner. This Court, however, while deciding Civil Revision No.464 of 1996 observed that the suit is not competent, yet, the petitioner can maintain the revision petition before the Government of Pakistan under section 17 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975. The revision petition was accepted on 7-11-1997 and the case was remanded to the Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board who in post remand proceedings maintained the earlier decision dated 10-9-1980. The petitioner challenged order dated 24-2-1.998 in revision petition under section 17 of the Evacuee Trust Property Board (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975. Respondent No. 1 dismissed the revision petition, hence this petition. .
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has attained decree from the Court of competent jurisdiction in his favour which has been upheld by the learned appellate Court and attained finality as the order of the appellate Court was not challenged anywhere. The petitioner being bona fide purchaser in open auction is entitled to claim the suit property. He has then submitted that the orders passed by the Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board as well as respondent No.l are erroneous inasmu ch as the impugned decisions are without any reasoning.
Non-speaking order is not sustainable in the eye of law.
3. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.4 to 11 has stood behind the impugned decisions, supported the same ahd has submitted that the nature of the property was that one of evacuee trust and the decree of the Civil Court being without jurisdiction is nullity. He has then submitted that the petitioner has been provided opportunity of being heard and after hearing the petitioner, a speaking order was, passed by respondent No.,2.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has submitted that the nature of the property is "Thakar Dawara" and the property shown as "Thakar Dawara" has been declared in the case of "Qazi Akbar #Jan v. Chairman District Evacuee Trust Committee Peshawar and others" (1991 SCMR 2206) as of Public religious Trust. Suit property (Thakar Dawara) not being evacuee property was wrongly allotted. Learned counsel has referred to order dated 10-11-1996, passed in C.R. No.464 of 1996 wherein this Court has held that the suit- land is protected under section 10(1) of the Act XIII of 1975.
The issue regarding the nature of the land being Evacuee Trust Property vests within the exclusive jurisdiction of Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board, who in terms of section 10(2) of the Act XIII of 1975 is competent to finally decide and resolve such issues. Respondent No.2 has rightly declared that the suit property is Evacuee Trust Property, therefore, no exception can be taken to the order impugned.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.
6. Schedule of Transfer Order No.30068 dated 6-1-1976, reflects the nature of the property as "Thakar Dawara". The sale-deed is admitted document wherein the property has been defined as "Matrooka, Thakar Dawara". Respondent No.2 passed order under sections 8 and 10 of the Att XIII of 1975 and had declared the suit property as Evacuee Trust Property. The nature of the property was Evacuee Trust Property, therefore, it's transfer against satisfaction of verified claim is valid only if permanent transfer deed is issued prior to June, 1968, by virtue of the provisions of section 10(1) of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975. Learned Full Bench of Honourable Sindh High Court in the case of "Maryam Bee and 2 others v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others" (PLD 1990 Karachi 427) has held that to show a valid transfer under section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and. Disposal) Act', 1975, one has to show firstly, that the property was utilized bona fide and transferred against the verified claims and secondly, that in respect of such property, a permanent transfer deed has been issued prior to June, 1968. If these conditions are missing the transfer of such property cannot be validated. The Court has held' that a transferee who had paid full transfer price and holds a PTO will not attain the status of permanent transferee. The Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board vide dated 24-2-1998, has held that the property sold through auction, cannot be validated under section 10 of the Act XIII of 1975 in the absence of a permanent Transfer Deed in favour of the petitioner. No illegality or infirmity is found in the impugned order of respondent No.2. The grounds raised in W.P. Are mere repetition of the grounds urged before respondent No.2 in revision. The respondents have passed orders, following the law laid down by superior Courts. I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
7. For the foregoing, this petition has no force and is dismissed accordingly.
8. Before parting with the judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the impugned order dated 26-9-1998 passed by Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, wherein he recommended to give the petitioner Evacuee Trust Property on rent to the same vicinity to compensate him. Learned counsel has pointed out that despite lapse of 8 years, no Evacuee Trust Property has so far been given to the petitioner On rent. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.l and 2 has undertaken that if the petitioner approaches respondent No. 2 for an alternate land on rent, his request will be properly adhered to. The petitioner is purchaser of Trust Land against a consideration, and is in litigation for the past three decades. Respondent No.2 is bound to follow the direction of respondent No.l. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to approach respondent No.2, who will pass an appropriate order, without causing any further delay on the application of the petitioner for alternate land on rent as per directions of respondent No.l. Parties are left to bear their own costs.