' ZAFAR IQBAL CHAUDHRY, J. Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan; 1973 the petitioners have challenged the letters dated 9-7-1992, 26-11-1996, 26-3-1996 and 28-11-1996 as well as initiation of inquiry by respondent No,2 being illegal, unlawful, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect on the rights of the petitioners who are lawful permanent transferees by virtue of permanent Transfer Deeds dated 27-12-1994 and respondents No,4 and 6 may be directed to implement the above-said transfer deeds in the revenue record by incorporating entries therein.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the disputed land situated at Mauza Jampur was allotted to one Haji Ghulam Muhammad through RL-II on 6-5-1968 who transferred this land to one Abdul Qadir vide Mutation No,752 dated 15-11-1971,, who further sold the above-said land to Mst. Sharifan, Mst. Nasim Bibi and Mst. Murad Khatoon vide sale deeds dated 4-4-1970, 7-2-1972 and 15-2-1972.
Which was mutated .In their favour in 1973 and their names were duly incorporated in the Khasra Girdawari also. The petitioners installed Ginning Factory on the disputed land and got approved the site-plan from the Municipal Committee Jampur on 31-3-1993. An application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was filed by one Muhammad Sarwar to the Chief Settlement Commissioner with the request that the disputed land having not been allotted to Ghulam Muhammad in accordance with laws was liable to be cancelled. This application was accepted and the land from the name of Ghulam Muhammad was cancelled by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 18-12-1973. Mst. Sharifan etc. Filed W.P.
No,1832/R of 1973, which was admitted for regular hearing and status quo order was issued vide order, dated 24-4-1975.. On 13-10-1977 the petitioners filed from under scheme No,9, Disposal & Management of Urban Available Property Scheme (IX) 1977 for the transfer of the above-said land in their names because at that time the land had fallen within the territorial jurisdiction of Municipal Committee Jampur. During proceedings on the application of the petitioners the Department imposed condition that if Mst. Sharifan etc. Withdrew their writ petition then the land would be allotted in their favour. On this understanding the petitioners moved C.M. No,452/92 in W.P. No,1832- R/74 which was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on '23-5-1992. After the withdrawal of the above-said writ petition keeping in view the condition imposed by the Department the disputed land was transferred in the names of the petitioners by the Department on 25-5-1992 and the petitioners also made the entire payment which was required by the department. Mst. Sharifan Bibi etc. Also surrendered in favour of the petitioners through agreement and their statements were recorded in this behalf on 26-5-1992, which was approved by the competent authority and TOs.Were issued in favour of the petitioners by the ADC (G) D.G. Khan.
Then again on 31-5-1992 a letter was issued by the ADC (G) D.G. Khan that at the time of the issuance of TOs on 31-5-1992 the ADC (G) D.G. Khan had no power to issue the above-said TOs because the disputed land did not fall within his territorial jurisdiction because Rajanpur District was created and this property fell into the territory of the said District and the matter was referred to Rajanpur District for necessary action. The ADC (G) Rajanpur again after examining the record transferred this land in favour of the petitioners on 27-12-1994 and fresh TOs were issued in their favour on the same day which was duly entered in the daily Roznamcha of the concerned revenue record vide Nos.1022, 259 and 260 dated 21-2-1995. After finalization of this issue D.C. Rajanpur again sent a letter dated 26-2-1995 to the revenue authorities not to incorporate the above said transfer in the revenue record on the sole ground that the price paid by the petitioners to the department was no lower side and also referred the matter to the Board of Revenue seeking permission to cancel the property from the names of the petitioners and to put it in open auction.
On the said reference order was passed by the Member, Board bf Revenue directing the Additional Commissioner to exercise his revisional jurisdiction in the above said matter and pass the order under the law. The above said order dated 28-11-1996 along with the other orders passed by the DC and the learned Member Board of Revenue have been challenged by the petitioners by way of this Constitutional petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned orders are illegal and not sustainable under the law because the property had been duly allotted in the names of the petitioners after full inquiry and according to the demand of the department the entire amount was also paid by the petitioners, therefore, this property could not have been cancelled by the department; that the value of the property was rightly assessed from the date when it was transferred in the names of the petitioners and that amount had already been deposited by them; that after the issuance of TOs the department had no authority to cancel the above said TOs until and unless there were sufficient reasons, but those were lacking in this case; that after the repeal of settlement laws there was no jurisdiction with the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the D.C. To pass the impugned orders because this was not a pending case; that the price assessed by the Tehsildar which was made basis for the review of this order was based upon the market value in the year 1995, which was illegal; that there was no fraud in the process for transfer of the property to the petitioners, which was. Transferred after obtaining amount as proposed by the department and the impugned orders/letters issued in this behalf are illegal and not sustainable under the law.
Relies upon Abdur Rahim and others v. Hassan Muhammad and others (1992 SCM R 827) and Anjum Ara and 11 others v. Province of Punjab through Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Revenue Department and 3 others (2004 M LD 787) in support of his contentions.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the allotment made in favour of the petitioners was not in accordance with law and the disputed property could not be allotted under Scheme No,9, Disposal & Management of Urban Available Property Scheme (IX) 1977 and the order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue for issuance of direction to the Addl: Commissioner to exercise his revisional jurisdictional was in accordance with law. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, as the basic allotment was illegal, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief under the constitutional jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to the notification dated 16-5-1973 according to which the property within the limits of Municipal Committee was always to be disposed of by way of open auction and not otherwise.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record it is admitted fact that the petitioners had filed an application for the transfer of the above said property under Scheme No,9, Disposal & Management of Urban Available Property Scheme (IX) 1977 on 13-10-1977 whereupon the proceedings were initiated by the department and after fulfilling all the formalities the property was transferred in their names on payment of the price assessed by the department. The first TO was issued in favour of the petitioners on 31-5-1992, but later on that order was withdrawn on the ground that on the said date the ADC (G) D.G. Khan had no authority to pass the same because the property at that time was not falling within his territorial jurisdiction, which fell within the territory of Rajanpur District. Thereupon the matter was referred to ADC (G), Rajanpur who after going through the entire record again transferred the above said land in the name of the petitioners vide order dated 27-12-1994 and issued fresh TOs in their favour. However, afterwards, the D.C. Rajanpur issued orders dated 26-2-1995 with the direction not to incorporate the above said land in the names of the petitioners in the Revenue Record for the reasons not explained in the latter and the matter was referred to the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore for the cancellation of allotment on the ground that the payment made by the petitioners was on lower side. Keeping in view the above said reference the learned Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab vide letter dated 28-11-1996 on the subject "Cancellation of orders of Deputy Settlement Commissioner/Deputy Administrator (R. P), Rajanpur regarding allotment of Evacuee Property situated at Chah Nehaluwala, Mauza Jampur, District Rajanpur", referred the matter of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/ Settlement Commissioner/Administrator (Residual Properties), D.G. Khan Division, Dera Ghazi Khan with the following direction:-- "I am sending herewith the reference No, 3770/DSC, dated 26-11-1996 (in original) along with enclosures received from the Deputy Commissioner, Rajanpur, on the subject noted above.
2. It is advised that matter may be taken up in your capacity as Administrator (R.P) in exercise of revisional power under the provisions of Scheme for Management and Disposal of Residual Evacuee Urban Properties and appropriate orders be passed according to law after hearing the concerned parties."
' After examination of all record it is found that the direction issued by the Member, Board of Revenue was only to see the payment made by the petitioners regarding the transfer of land to the petitioner. There was no question in the reference sent by the D.C. To the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore or in the letter issued by the Member, Board of Revenue of Addl. Commissioner about the illegal allotment or transfer of the land to the petitioners. Keeping in view this situation, I am not in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned letter issued by the Board of Revenue and the Reference sent by the D.C. Were regarding illegal allotment to the petitioners. In fact the query was made regarding the price of the land assessed by the department and which was paid by the petitioners with the department.
6. So far as the allotment of the land made in favour of the petitioners is concerned, that was never challenged by the department or any one else in any Court of law and all the orders referred in this case are also silent about the same. There is nothing on the record or pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents even to suggest that the petitioners had committed any fraud with the department, but it is admitted position that they had duly applied for the above said land to the department under the relevant Scheme and after fulfilling all the formalities and payment of the amount as assessed by the department, TOs were issued in their favour. It is also not denied that the petitioners have already installed a Ginning Factory on the land after its allotment in the year 1993 with the approval of the concerned Municipal Committee and have accrued a right in his behalf, which cannot be withdrawn at this stage on flimsy grounds on the basis of the impugned order/letters, which are found to have been issued without reasoning.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and the impugned orders passed by the respondent are set aside having been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
There will be no order as to costs.