' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.-- The petitioners are ultimate vendees of land mentioned in para-1 of the writ petition which was originally allotted to Syed Akbar Ali Shah under Border Area kegulation, 1959 being an employee of Pakistan Army. The allotment was cancelled vide order dated 22-11- 2005 which order was questioned in W.P. No,l27-R of 2006 in this Court. The petition was dismissed on 5-6-2007. However, the petitioners were directed to file an application for grant of ex post facto NOC. Such an application was filed but has been rejected by respondent No, 1 vide order dated 21- 11-2007.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the order is wholly nonspeaking and violative of section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 being sans any reason. Learned counsel for respondent No,l,, on the other hand, supports the impugned order, as according to him the alienation in favour of the petitioners was violative of the Border Area Regulation, 1959.
3. We have considered the said submissions made by the learned counsel. In the earlier judgment passed by this Court and recorded by one of us (Maulvi Anwarul Haq, J.) it was sought to be impressed upon the respondents and concerned Authorities the prevailing circumstances vis-a- vis land allotted under the said Regulation with a particular reference to the multiple alienations taking place and mutations being attested and sale-deeds being registered with impunity. The last vendees ultimately end up in this court. Learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 informs us that some measures are being taken and stem warnings are proposed to be issued to the revenue officers and registration officers in the matter of recording alienations of the land allotted under the said Regulation.
4. We reiterate here that to our minds the said prohibition has been enacted with certain purposes i.e, satisfaction of the Authorities responsible for defence of the country to be satisfied about the credential of the vendee entering the said land as a result of sale. This, of course, involves an investigative process or some proceedings having semblance of an inquiry to be carefully conducted particularly in the circumstances prevailing in the country. At the same time it is to be kept in mind that barring the said NOC a lawful contract is entered into between a vendor and a vendee consideration is paid and process of sale, thus, stands completed vesting the vendee with valuable right in property. In the order to be passed on application filed whether, before or after the sale it ought to be explicitly stated as to what process has. Been employed to judge credential of the vendee whether entitling "him Or disentitling him to the grant of NOC. This duty stands imposed upon the concerned Authorities under the statutory provisions as codified in section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. We find that only regret have been expressed without stating a single reason as to why NOC has been refused. Needless to state that such refusal apart from causing irreparable loss to the vendee inasmuch as he is deprived of his property having paid consideration for the same in the matter of ex post facto sanction, it goes to create a stigma. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 2.1-11-2007 is found to be without lawful authority and illegal, and is declared as such and is set aside. The result would be that the matter shall be deemed to be pending. The parties shall put in appearance before respondent No, 1 on 20- 1-2009. The matter shall be referred for re-consideration and for passing an order as observed above. No order as to costs.