Memorandum dated 26.10.2004 whereby the petitioner was directed to appear before the Deputy Secretary (S&R) Board of Revenue, Punjab "for statement/documents in support of-allegations leveled by the complaint failing which the case will be decided ex parte" is sought to-be assailed through this petition under Article 199. of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic, of Pakistan, 1973.
2. The circumstances in which this petition arises are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was allotted land measuring 371 K 5M in Shadiwal, Tehsil Depalpur, District Okara on 29.9.1963 against the claim duly verified which area, however, was later on reduced as a result of consolidation process to 368K 18M. Ever since, the allotment has remained in the. field until the above mentioned memorandum was received by the petitioner in the year 2004 which was issued at the instance of Iftikhar Ahmad Khan, Respondent' o.
3. The entertainment of the miscellaneous application and, assumption of jurisdiction is being assailed on several grounds including that the allotment which had become final long before the repeal of Evacuee Laws in the year 1975, cannot be reopened on any such miscellaneous application.
3. In the parawise comments filed by the respondents, the vital factum of allotment in favour of Syed Khurshid Ahmed, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, is admitted. It is, however, stated that pursuant to the complaint of Respondent No, 3 a preliminary probe was carried out and it was found that the allotment was prima facie bogus and that the settlement authorities are competent to make determination of issues of fraud and to cancel such allotments. The comments since were not supported by any document i,e, the application of Respondent No, 3 or the "preliminary probe", the learned counsel for the Settlement Department was directed to produce the original file which has been produced today.
4. Respondent No, 3 has already been proceeded ex parte in the connected petition (W.P. No, 114- R/2006). Both the petitions are between the same parties and concern the same subject matter. In that petition, assumption of jurisdiction by the official respondents on another application of 2006 moved by the same person has been assailed on identical grounds. Thus, due to commonality of the factual and legal position, both the petitions have been heard together and are being decided accordingly.
5. The prime contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that reopening of a past and closed matter of allotment of land is a sheer abuse of process of the Court; the only object behind which is to cause harassm ent by involving the petitioner into an uncalled for litigation as the allotment was free of any taint and was validly made. He bas 'placed reliance upon Nawabzada Zafar Ali Khan and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member, Board, of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others (1999 SCMR 1719), Syed Istijab Hassan and 4 others v. Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing), Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (1999 YLR 1627) and Syed Ahmad Nusrat Ullah and others v. Member, Board of Revenue and others (2002 CLC 384) to support his contentions.
6. The essential fact as to the allotment of land made in the year 1963 in favour of the predecessor- in-interest of the petitioner has not been denied. It is also admitted that as per "Misl-e-haqiat pertaining to the year 1966-67 prepared after consolidation, the land is recorded as 368K-18M."
The allotment remained undisputed and unchallenged till the year 2004 when- for the first time, Respondent No, 3 made a miscellaneous application that the same was bogus. Much before that in the year 1975, Evacuee Laws were repealed, conferring finality through legislative measure i,e, Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The object was to close the chapter of allotments and matters pertaining thereto except where the proceedings were pending on 1.7.1974 or the matter was remanded by any Superior Court. There was another possibility for scrutiny of allotments where prima facie fraud had been committed. In the instant case, the long standing entries in the revenue record would prove the factum of allotment and its continuous existence in the name of the allottee. Mere assertions made in the miscellaneous application/complaint by Respondent No, 3 would not have impaired its finality. From the file produced by the official respondents and perusal of the statement of Munshi Muhammad Boota, Patwari and Niaz Ahmed Dogar, Naib Tehsildar, Depalpur, this fact further finds affirmation that long before repeal of the Evacuee Laws, the allotment in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner did exist on the record. The statements made by the said officials are of 09.08.2004 whereas the memorandum impugned in the petition was issued on 26.10.2004. There was nothing in their statements attributing any element of fraud or forgery in obtaining the allotment. The said memorandum apparently had no valid basis whatsoever for reopening of the matter of allotment having attained finality. In Syed Ahmad Nusrat Ullah and others v. Member, Board of Revenue and others (2002 CLC 384) this Court had the occasion of examining somewhat identical issue and it was observed that "In Nawabzada Zafar Ali Khan and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others 1999 SCM R 1719, it was observed that "any petition or representation, filed by the petitioners with regard to the matter which otherwise stood finalized long back or even where aggrieved person may. believe to have legitimate claim, same under the law could not be entertained by the Chief Settlement Commissioner or notified officer or any other Settlement authority by virtue of "the Repealing Act".
Therefore, proceedings drawn by the Settlement Commissioner which culminated in passing of order, dated 26.2.1992 were devoid of lawful authority and deemed to have no legal effect.
Therefore, on the established principle of law entire edifice constructed over it shall automatically crumble and fall to the ground". In Syed Istijab Hasan and 4 others v. Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing), Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab Lahore 1999 YLR 1627, it was observed that since no proceedings were pending against the petitioners' allotment at the time of the repeal of Settlement Laws, the Settlement Authority acted without lawful authority in taking proceedings on a Mukhbari application, filed after the repeal of the laws. In Jamal-ud-Din v.
Member, Board of Revenue and 4 others 2001 CLC 81, the view taken by this Court was that a matter of transfer of evacuee property which had assumed finality before the coming into force of repealing law i,e, Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, could not be reopened after the repeal of Settlement Laws. The judgment of this Court in Jamal-ud-Din's case (supra) was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Petition No, 2546/L of 2000. There is thus, no obscurity as to the legal position that obtains on the subject." It may be observed that mere allegation of "fraud and forgery" does not ipso facto vest the respondents with the jurisdiction in a matter which has otherwise attained finality. If such a course is allowed to be adopted, there will be no end to it. In Begum Shams-unNisa v. Said Akbar Abbasi and another (PLD 1982 SC 413), it was observed that "We have, therefore, no doubt in our mind that the allegations of fraud and forgery leveled against the appellant are false and concoctions. In fact, we regret to note that it has become fashionable to make reckless allegations of fraud etc. against respectable persons in order to obtain some unjust advantage and such practices deserve to be noticed seriously and discouraged by Courts of law. In the instant case, the allotment has existed in the records since 1963 which was never assailed by any one, its reopening for enquiry after about four decades on mere bald assertion of Respondent No, 3, who has even failed to come forward to support and substantiate his allegations in the complaint before this Court, would be a futile exercise. Issuance of impugned memorandum for initiation of proceedings thus was without due application of mind to the factual and legal aspects of the matter. In Sindh Employees Social Security Institution v. Dr. Mumtaz Ali Taj and another (PLD 1975 SC 450) assumption of jurisdiction by the Labour Court was held to be without lawful authority observing that "if Respondent No, 2 proceeds to hear the complaint of Respondent No, 1, the proceedings will be wholly without jurisdiction and, therefore a nullity." The proceedings initiated and pending before the Labour Court were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and were thus, quashed. In view of the circumstances apparent on the record, the issuance of memorandum and the initiation of proceedings by the official respondents are, thus, without any factual or legal justification and are declared as of no legal effect. It is, however, observed that the official functionaries of State are expected to take maximum, care before initiating proceedings in such matters on mere bald assertions of fraud and forgery. Due application, of mind is necessary before issuing the process so that abuse of law and misuse of power is avoided. This way valuable time in conducting futil proceedings can be saved. For the above reasons, both these petitions are accepted. Since Respondent No, 3 has chosen to remain away from the proceedings, I make no order as to costs.