To begin with Qudrat Ullah, the later grand-father of the petitioner filed W.P.No, 17511/96 in this Court stating that he is occupying evacuee property comprising Kila No, 2 of Square No, 34 in Chak No, 122/JB, Tehsil and District Faisalabad and has raised permanent structures thereon. He initiated proceedings for its transfer in his favour. The spot was inspected and vide order dated 30.10.1967 Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed an order for transfer whereupon a PTO was issued on 3.2.1968. The transfer price and fees were paid and a PTD was issued on 16.4.1974. The grievance made was that he had been repeatedly approaching the local revenue officers to implement the said transfer in the revenue records but the needful is not being done Comments were filed by an ADC(G)/DSC, Faisalabad, on 14.10:1996. It was admitted that as per Settlement Record, the said petitioner is in possession of the plot and raised structure thereon but it was stated that the revenue record does not contain any such entry. It was further explained that the land stands exchanged under orders of Central Government dated 3.1.1958. Reference was made to a judgment dated 21.7.1990 of a Division bench of this Court in W.P. No, 5494/87 whereby PTDs or TOs issued up- to 12.6.1988 were to be scrutinized and if found genuine proprietary rights were to be. allowed. This writ petition was disposed of on 15.10.1996 with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the said officer or Collector, Faisalabad, who will examine the matter.
2. Vide order dated 27.11.1997 the ADC(G)/DSC, Faisalabad, rejected the application holding the documents to be forged and fabricated.
3. Against the said order dated 27.11.1997 the petitioner filed W.P. No 29288/97. The matter was heard on 27.11.1998 and 30.11.1998 by this Court. Contentions of both the parties were noted and the writ petition was allowed and the said order was declared to be without lawful authority. The matter was directed to be decided afresh.
4. This time the matter came up before a D.O.(R)/Notified Officer, Sheikhupura, which was transferred to the said officer by the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, vide order dated 7.10.2002 from the D.O.(R), Faisalabad. The said officer noted the points to be determined in the light of notification dated 12.6.1988 and decided the same and ultimately found the transfer order in favour of the petitioner to be legal and valid and directed the Circle Revenue Officer to attest a mutation in accordance with law. Pursuant to this order, Mutations No, 32173 and 32178 transferring the land from Provincial Government to Central Government and to the LRs of the said Qudrat Ullah (who had since died) were attested on 30.9.2003.
5. Against the order dated 22.5.2003 of the DO(R)/Notified Officer, the respondents filed W.P. No, 8560/04 in this Court. This writ petition was heard on 18.9.2007 and vide judgment dated 18.9.2007 the said order was upheld with the finding that the LRs of Qudrat Ullah are transferees through a valid transfer order and are in possession of the property and that the direction for incorporation of their names in the revenue record is in accordance with the proven facts and dictates of law.
Admittedly, this judgment was not challenged by any one, in any manner, prescribed by law.
6. According to' the petitioner, the Tehsildar City, Faisalabad, after sanctioning the said mutations himself filed an appeal before DDO(R). Without any notice to the LRs of Qudrat Ullah, the appeal was allowed on the very next day and resultantly the mutations were cancelled. Realizing the illegality of the said act, it was decided to file the said writ petition, which was decided by this Court on 18.9.2007.
7. The respondents remained adamant and did not undo the wrong done by them by restoring the earlier mutations or attesting fresh mutations in accordance with the order of the DO(R)/Notified Officer as 'affirmed by this Court. The petitioner then filed W.P. No, 2993/09 in this Court, which was disposed of on 17.2.2009 with a direction to the Tehsildar City, Faisalabad, to pass appropriate orders on the application filed by the petitioner in accordance with the judgment of this Court.
8. Present writ petition has been filed with the grievance that instead of complying with the said judgments, the Respondent No, 3 filed an appeal before Respondent No, 2 against the order dated 22.5.2003 of the DO(R)/Notified Officer and simultaneously the Respondent No 1 has commenced proceedings upon a reference by Respondent No 3. The writ petition came up on 17.4.2009 when all the said facts were noted and the Tehsildar was directed to attest the mutation in accordance with the order of the Notified Officer as affirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 18.9.2007 in W.P. No, 8560/04. The case then came up on 13.5.2009 when Respondents No, 1, 3 and 4 filed replies.
Respondent No, 3 stated that she had not filed any appeal while the learned counsel for the other respondents sought time to sort out the matter so that the orders of the Court are duly implemented. The direction was repeated on 1.6.2009. On 5.6.2009 Hafiz Muhammad Yousaf, Advocate, filed C.M. No, 2413/09 praying that the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, be impleaded. The application was allowed in terms that the learned counsel was permitted to address the Court at the time of hearing. On the same date, it was reported that the mutations have been attested in accordance with the orders of the Court. The writ petition was accordingly fixed for hearing.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, in view of the said factual history of the case, the earlier orders have been rightly got implemented by this Court. Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate with reference to judgment dated 14.4.2009 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeals No, 625/03 and Civil Appeals No, 627/03 as also judgment in the case of Muhammad Ramzan and others v. Member (Rev.)/CSS and others (1997 SCM R 1635) vehemently urges that the earlier order of the DO(R) as well as the judgment of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondents are per incuriam and this Court cannot be called upon to implement the same.
According to him, the land having been exchanged with the State land, there was no question of its being dealt with by the Authorities under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons laws and as such the transfer order in favour of Qudrat Ullah is void ab initio. Hafiz Muhammad Yousaf, Advocate, also with reference to a judgment dated 21.4.2009 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.P.
No, 557-L/04 reiterates the said arguments of Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate. Both the learned counsel also refer to another judgment dated 10.7.2001 in Civil Appeals No, 2233 and 2234 of 1998.
10. I deem it appropriate, in the first instance, to deal with the arguments based on the said case of Muhammad Raman and others (1997 SCM R 1635). By way of the said judgment, several appeals arising out of a common judgment dated 16.1.1994 passed by this Court in several writ petitions, were decided. The leading opinion was expressed by Hon'ble Munawar Ahmad Mirza J. The facts or the cases were, narrated. The history of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws as also the intent thereof was explained. Thereafter reference was made to a notification issued on 16.5.1973 by the Chief Settlement Commissioner whereby all available evacuee urban land including the one not yet confirmed to any person against units or evacuee land which may become available in future in all the revenue estates falling within urban limits throughout the Province of Punjab were declared as building sites to be disposed of under Section 13 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. I may note here that this provision lays down that in future land declared to be a building site by the Chief Settlement Commissioner was to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Reference was then made to the judgment in the case of Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing)/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore v. Muhammad Mustafa and 74 others (1993 SCM R 732) to observe that it stands specifically elucidated that neither nature of land could be converted nor proceedings treated as pending even under directions of Superior Courts if the same tends to contravene existing law. Then several cases were examined accordingly to derive that when claims were not satisfied or direction issued by Superior Courts regarding subject matter which inherently suffered from want of jurisdiction, were not complied on concession for allotting alternate urban land to claimants against unsatisfied Produce Index Units even if any concession was made by the Department, otherwise having no authority specially after repealing Act, could not be legitimately sustained. It was accordingly held that by virtue of the said notifications dated 16.5.1973 no agricultural urban land existed which could be adjusted against unsatisfied verified claims of Produce Index Units and as such the unsatisfied claimants were not entitled to obtain allotment of urban land in satisfaction of pending units as alternate land. Consequently the judgments of this Court mostly based on concession by the Law Officers appearing for the Settlement Department directing allotment of alternate land were held to be per incuriam and not binding.
11. In view of the factual history explained above, the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case, which, in fact, was initiated and dealt with under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and if was not a case of satisfaction of any Produce Index Units or land claims.
12. So far as the said unreported judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are concerned, in the matter of said Civil Appeals No, 625 and 627 of 2003, the case of the appellants before their lordships was based on temporary allotment under the Rehabilitation Scheme which was not confirmed. In the matter of C.P, No, 557-L of 2004 the plot was sold in auction on 24.8.1968 but it was not confirmed and the Settlement Department refused to issue a PTD and, thus, a suit was field in which ultimately the said C.P. arose. I may note here that in these two cases, the effect of notification issued by the Provincial Government on 12.6.1988 was not considered. However, in the matter of Civil Appeals No, 2233 and 2234 of 1998, the matter of Civil Appeals No, 2233 and 2234 of 1998, the matter was considered with reference to the said notification and one of the appeals was allowed with directions for transfer of alternate land.
13. Reverting back to the present case, none of the judgments were passed on any concession. In the first instance, W P. No, 29288/97 was duly contested by the respondents but was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Notified Officer who then passed the said order dated 22.5.2003. W.P. No, 8560/04 was filed against the said order by the respondents and not by the petitioner, which, of course, was contested and was dismissed with observation as noted above and this judgment was not questioned any further. The findings of facts were recorded by the DO(R)/Notified Officer, which were confirmed by this Court and Qudrat Ullah was found to be lawful transferee.
14. Needless to state that the case of the petitioner was scrutinized by the DO(R)/Notified Officer in strict accordance with the terms of the notification dated 12.6.1988 as interpreted by this Court and then by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, inter alia, in the said Civil Appeals No, 2233 and 2234 of 1998. I, this Court dismissing the writ petition of the respondents was not per incuriam and was binding upon both the parties and they were bound to implement the same in letter and spirit.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of in the said terms.
No orders as to costs.