IQBAL HAMEEDUR RAHMAN, J. --- Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that one Abdul Khaliq Siddiqui, a displaced person from India, was allotted land at Khata No. 62 of Register RL-Il and the same was also confirmed in 1963. The legal heirs of Abdul Khaliq Siddiqui sold the land to one A.I Muhammad son of Sharaf Din and Muhammad Khan son of Noor Muhammad. In this regard, a suit for specific performance was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Sheikhupura and the sale-deed was registered on 13-5-1987.
2. That on the application of 'respondent No. 1, Rao Maqsood A.I Khan, the then Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura, passed an order on 1-2-1986 That the allotment of Abdul Khaliq Siddiqui is not valid. The said order of the Deputy Commissioner was challenged in revision petition by All Muhammad but the revision" petition was . Dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 27-6-1988. A.I. Muhammad filed W.P. No. 118-R/1988 wherein compromise was effected between All Muhammad (petitioner in the said writ petition) and Rao Maqsood All Khan, respondent No. 1, whereby the land measuring 8 kanals, 6 marlas comprising of square No. 23, Killa No. 6/2 measuring 1 kanal, square No. 23, Killa No. 18 measuring 4 kanals, 17 marlas, killa No. 22/2 measuring 1 kanal, 12 marlas,square No. 29, killa No. 10/2 measuring 17 marlas would be retrained by Rao Maqsood All Khan respondent No. 1 because it was allotted in the name of his father 'Rao Mashooq A.I Khan and remaining land measuring 22 kanals 18 marlas would be deemed to be confirmed against the aforesaid Khata No. 62 and party one would be deemedto be its owner. Therefore, the said writ 'petition was disposed of in view of the compromise vide order dated 6-11-2000. Thereafter, Rao Maqsood A.I Khan, respondent No. 1, moved an, application to, the Tehsildar Sheikhupura, praying that the order passed in W.P. No. 18-R/88 may be implemented.
Liaqat AIL son of A.I Muhammad also moved an application for the said purpose It was during the pendency of these applications' that it revealed from the Revenue Record that land comprising of square 'No. 17; killa' No. 6/2, measuring 1 kanal, square No. 23, killa No. 18, measuring 4 kanals, 17 marlas, killa No. 22/2 measuring 1 kanal, 1.2 marlas, square No. 29 killa. No. 10/2 measuring 17 marlas, total land measuring 8 kanals 10 marlas is already entered in the name of legal heirs of Rao Mashooq A.I, father of respondent No. 1 vide mutation No. 321 dated 8-10-1991 but the land. In favour of Abdul Khaliq Siddiqui was resumed by mutation No. 320 attested on 8-10-1991. Consequently, keeping in view the registered sale-deed and the judgment of this Court. Dated 6-11-2000 passed in W.P. No. 118-R/88 mutation No. 1824 was sanctioned on 3-10-2001. Therefore, the petitioners purchased land measuring' 8 kanals,. 3 marlas out of square No. 7, killa No. 22/2, square No. 23 killa No. 12/2 square No. 13 killa No. 1, 14/2 from Muhammad Khan son of Noor Muhammad for a consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- vide mutation No..
2193 dated 22-3-2004. Now on the implementation of the order of this Court passed in VV.P.No. 118- R/1988 dated 6-11-2000, respondent No. 2 has issued memorandum dated 27-12-2006, wherein the Member/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab allowed as under:- "(a) As the land measuring 8 "kanals" "marlas" was allotted to Rao Mashooq A.I Khan the father of the . Petitioner and same was considered.
Genuine by the District Collector, vide order dated 1-12-1986. Neither the allotment at RI-II Khata. No. 7 nor the order of District Collector: Sheikhupura dated 1-12 1986 was set aside by the Lahore High.
Court,' Lahore vide order dated 6-11-2000 passed in VV.P No. 118-R/19'88. .Therefore. The said allotment is allowed to be incorporated in the name of the allottee after observing all the codal formalities.
(b) The detail of the officials who are involved for transfer of the said resume evacuee land measuring 22 kanals, 18 marlas in favour of Liaqat A.I etc. Be communicated with their present posting be sent to this office for information of worthy Chief Settlement. Commissioner, Punjab.
(c) The latest position of the enquiry proceedings against those officials be intimated.
(d) Criminal case be got' registered against officials/beneficiaries and copy of F I.R. Be sent".
Against the said memorandum dated 27-12-2006, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioners as they are bona fide purchasers of the land measuring 4 kanals, 17 marlas and the same was mutated in their favour by respondent No. 1 and others vide mutation No. -2153 dated 8-1-2004 for a consideration of Rs. 11,00,000/- and similarly, the Petitioner purchased land measuring 8 kanals, 3 marlas from Muhammad Khan son of Noor Muhammad, a co-sharer of Liaqat A.I etc. For a consideration of Rs. 10,00,000/- vide. Mutation No. 2193 dated 22-3-2004 and, therefore, valuable rights have accrued in 'favour of the petitioners as the said mutations have not been challenged before any Civil Court; that the sale deed exists in favour of 'A.I Muhammad and Malik Muhammad Khan and the same was registered under the direction of the learned Civil Judge and the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge is also holding the field and no application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. Has been moved that the said judgment and decree had been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation and it is the duty of the Patwari and the Revenue Officer to incorporate the same in the Revenue Record,. Therefore, any criminal' proceedings cannot be launched against the subsequent purchasers i.e. The petitioners; that under Section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, Revenue Officer or the Patwari cannot question the decree of the Civil Court arid the registered sale deed, because it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Revenue , hierarchy to refuse to implement the order of the Civil Court and High Court or to refuse to enter the sale deed in the Revenue Record and the same can only be challenged before the Civil Court, and as the said mutations exist in favour of the petitioners, their rights are fully protected under Section 41 of the:Transfer of Property Act; that while issuing the impugned memorandum, no notice was issued to the petitioners and the petitioners have been condemned unheard and no reason has been given in the memorandum and rule 24-A of the General Clauses Act requires that before passing an order, it should be a speaking one; .That the land had already been incorporated in the names of the legal heirs and there was no need of holding any inquiry; that respondents No. 2 & 3 assumed jurisdiction 'on the basis of a fact which does not exist; that even from the perusal of the impugned memorandum, it is apparent that respondent No. 2 has directed the Revenue Authorities to Implement the order dated 6-11-2000 passed in WP. No. 118-R/88 and if the above said order is already implemented how the criminal case can be registered against the officials and beneficiates /purchasers, therefore, the impugned memorandum is violative of principle of natural justice, illegal and without jurisdiction. Further, Notified Officer could only interfere in actively pending matters but in the instant case, the matter has been decided upto the level of the High Court :n W.P. No. 118-R188 and the compromise has not been challenged by the Revenue Authorities the order of this Court has become binding on them as Deputy Commissioner/Collector,. Sheikhupura and Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, Lahore were parties before this Court in W.P. No: 118-R of 1.988 as respondents Nos. 5 & 6 and that as the said mutations were entered in the Revenue Record on the basis of allotment' made under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Laws and the orders were past and closed transactions; no action can be .Taken against the petitioners. In support of these contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Mian 'Dilawar Mahmood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan v. Member (Judicial-III)/Chief . Settlement Commissioner; Board of Revenue Punjab, ,Lahore (PLJ 2005 Lahore, 628), Government of Sindh v. Zafarul Islam and others (2002 SCM R 447), Nawabzada Zafar A.I Khan and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. And others. (1999 SCM R 1719) and Abdul Hameed, Ex Patwari Rio Village Karbat, Tehsil Cantt. District Lahore and others v. Member (Revenue) BO and and 3 others (PLJ 2006 S.C. 400).
4: On the other hand, it has been contended on behalf of respondents No. 2 & 3 that the compromise effected in W.P. No. 118-R/88 is not binding on respondents No 2 & 3 as the land was resumed in favour of the Central Government and mutation No. 134 was sanctioned on 23-61981 in favour of the Central Government, that in the order dated 6-11-2000 passed in W.P. No. 118-R/88; it was observed that the parties have settled their dispute amicably and petitioner and respondent No. 1 have entered into a compromise, whereas the order passed by 'the Deputy Commissioner Sheikhupura as District Collector dated 1-1219.86 showing allotment in favour of Abdul Khaliq Siddiqui has been declared .Bogus and the land has been ordered to be resumed in favour of the State, the land measuring 8. Kanals, 6 marlas which allotted at RL-ll Khata No. 7 was ordered to remain intact and the 'rest of the land will be resumed in favour of the Central Government and mutation No. 134 sanctioned on 23-6-1981 on the basis of RL-IIKhata No. 62 be reviewed and land resumed in favour of the Central Government; that the compromise could not be made when the land had already been resumed in favour of the Central Government and the Settlement Department has no record of the allotment in favour of Abdul Khaliq Siddiqui and that respondents- No. 2 & 3 were not party to the compromise as such the allotment of the land measuring 22 kanals, 18 marlas claimed by the petitioners may kindly be declared bogus and the writ petition be dismissed.
5. On behalf of respondents No. 1, it has been argued that Settlement Department is not a party; that other persons cannot enter into a compromise when the land has been resumed in favour of the Central Government; that there is no dispute that respondent No. 1 had sold land measuring 4 .Kanals and 17 marlas to the petitioners and there is no allegation against respondent No. 1 in the writ petition nor any relief has been sought against respondent No. 1 and, therefore, he should be deleted from the array of the respondents. It is further pointed out that the inquiry is still pending and no final order has still be passed and this writ petition is pre-mature, as such the same be dismissed.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents and perused the impugned memorandum alongwith the material available on the record.
'
7. The and was allotted to one Abdul Khaliq Siddiqui, a displaced person from India at Khata N.o. 62 of Register RL-II and the same was confirmed in 1963. His legal heirs sold the same to one A.I Muhammad and Muhammad Khan. In.
This regard; a decree for specific performance was passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sheikhupura and the sale deed was registered on 13-51987.
8. The allotment of Abdul Khaliq Siddiqui was declared invalid by the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura vide order dated 1-2-1986 on the application of respondent No 1, Rao Maqsood A.I Khan. The said order was challenged by All Muhammad by way of revision petition which was dismissed. Therefore, A.I Muhammad filed Writ Petition No. 118-R of 1988, wherein a compromise was effected between A.I Muhammad and respondent No. 1 and the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 6-11- . 2000. Both the parties filed applications for implementations of the order dated 6-11-2000 in W.P No. 118-R of 1988. It. was during the pendency of these applications that the land was entered in the Revenue Record in the names of both the parties. Therefore, the petitioners purchased the land measuring 8 kanals, 3 marlas from Muhammad Khan, co-sharer of Liaqat son of A.I Muhammad for consideration of Rs.
10,00,000/- vide mutation No. 2193 dated 22-3-2004 and the land measuring 4 kanals and 17 marlas from respondent No. 1 and others for a consideration of Rs. 11,00,000/- vide mutation No. 2153 dated 8-1-004. The said mutations have not been challenged before any Civil Court. Therefore, the valuable rights have accrued in favour of the petitioners and the same are fully protected under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. The sale deed exists in favour of. A.I Muhammad and Malik Muhammad Khan and the same was registered under the direction of the learned Civil Judge and the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge still holds the field and no application under Section 12(2) C.P.C. Has yet been moved that the said decree has been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. Therefore, the judgment and decree regarding the registration of the sale deed passed by the learned Civil Judge has attained finality and under Section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, it is the duty of the Revenue hierarchy to implement the order of the Court and the revenue staff cannot go beyond the decree and is bound to give effect to it unless it is set aside or varied by competent Court and in this respect reliance is placed upon Abdul Hameed's Case (PLJ 2006 SC 400). As the entries in the Record of Rights had been made on the basis of allotment made under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Laws and the orders were past' and closed transaction, no action can be taken against the petitioners, who are bona, fide purchasers. In this respect reliance is placed upon Government of Sindh v. Zafarullah Islam and others (2002 SC{V1R 447). Notified Officer can only interfere in actively pending matters but' in the instant case, the Matter has been decided upto the, level of the High Court in W.P. No. 118- R/88 and the compromise effected between the parties has not been challenged by the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Sheikhupura, and the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division,. Lahore. Who were parties in the said writ petition as respondents No. 5 &6, they never objected to the compromise in Court at that time nor challenged the same. Before any forum, therefore, the order dated 6-11-2000 passed in W.P. No. 118-R/88 has become binding on them as . Well.. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents that respondents No. 2 & 3 were not party W.P. No. 118-R/88, as such the allotment of land measuring -22 kanals, 18 marlas claimed by the petitioners on the basis of the compromise is bogus has no force as the Deputy Commissioner, Sheikhupura was arrayed as respondent No. 5 as District Collector and Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, Lahore, as respondent No. 6 in W.P: No, 118-R/88. That at the time of passing of order dated 6-11- 2000 in W.P. No. 118-R/88,. They were fully represented and no objections were raised by them in the Court nor they challenged the same any further, hence respondents No. 2 3 shall be deemed to be party to the compromise arrived at between the parties.
9. In view of the above circumstances and relying upon the authorities cited by learned counsel for the respondents, I am of the view that respondent No. 2 was not justified in issuing memorandum dated 27-12-2006. As such, this writ petition is accepted and the impugned memorandum dated 27-12-2006 is set aside.