' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA J.---This civil petition has been filed by two senior functionaries of the Punjab Province namely the Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue along with a third petitioner namely, the District Coordination Officer of the City District Government, Lahore. The petitioners impugn the judgment dated 27-3-2006 of a learned Division Bench of the High Court passed in ICA No,125 of 2006, whereby the judgment of a learned Judge in Chambers dated 15-5-2006 was set aside and as a result, Writ Petition No, 99-R of 2004 filed by the respondents, was allowed.
2. Although the record of this case is voluminous, the facts relevant for its disposal are relatively straightforward. The case before us can conveniently be split into two parts. The first part relates to the controversy as to title in the property comprised in khasra numbers 620/1 and 620 Jail Road, Lahore, which forms the subject matter of this petition. The second aspect of the case relates to the actions undertaken by certain high level functionaries of the Provincial Government and some functionaries of the District Administration and City Government, Lahore.
3. We first, take up for consideration, the title aspect of the case.
' In order to provide context to the discussion which follows, the relevant facts relating to the property in question can now be stated. The respondents who were petitioner in Writ Petition No,99-R of 2004, claim to be owners of property measuring 6 kanals 1 marla and 25 sq. Ft.
Comprised in khasra numbers 620 and 620/1 min situated in Hadbast Mozang, bearing property Nos. S-77-R-45 and S-77-R-45/1. The property was evacuee in nature and stood transferred in favour' of Mst. Latif Begum as confirmed by the record of permanent transfers dated 30-3-1963.
Mutation No, 10553 was sanctioned much later in 1994, in favour of Mst. Latif Begum. Through five separate sale deeds registered between May 1994 and July, 1995 Mst. Latif Begum sold the aforesaid property to the respondents. Thereafter five mutations were entered in the Revenue Record in favour of the respondents, based on these sale deeds.
4. In May, 2003, the respondents applied to the Town Municipal Administration, Data Gunj Bakhsh Town, for permission to construct a multi-storey commercial building on the property in question.
The building plans submitted by the respondents were approved by a high level Committee. The approval, however, was made subject to two conditions, which for the purposes of the controversy as to title, are not relevant.
5. It has been alleged by the respondents in their writ petition that a controversy was raised by the District Administration as to the title of the respondents. It is not apparent froth the record as to why, how and by whom this controversy was first raised within the District Administration. We do, however, have on record a letter addressed by the Town Officer (Planning and Coordination), Data Gunj Bakhsh Town, addressed to the Deputy District Officer (Revenue). The subject of the letter is the verification of the title document No, 13112 in bahi No,1 Volume 4284 dated 19-12-1999 in favour of Abrar Saeed and Anwar Saeed, who are respondents Nos. 2 and 4, respectively in this petition. By means of this letter the Town Officer purported to inform the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) that an un-authorized plaza had been constructed on property bearing No,45 Jail Road, Lahore. It was also stated that documents of title had been submitted in the office of the Town Officer (Planning and Coordination). A request was made that the same may be verified so that further action can be taken against the unauthorized construction. We have been unable to determine what prompted the issuance of the letter considering that there was no dispute as to the title of the respondents and also that action against any unauthorized construction had no nexus with, and was not contingent on title.
6. A report thereafter appears to have been submitted to the effect that the five mutations made in favour of the respondent and the mutation No,10553 in favour of Mst. Latif Begum be reviewed. The basis for this recommendation was that there was no PTD available with the mutation dated 25-8- 1994 made in favour of Mst. Latif Begum. This ostensible reason appears as the justification for questioning the title of Mst. Latif Begum and, by extension, the title conveyed by her to the respondents. For a number of reasons considered below, this apparent justification for disputing the title of the respondents is without merit or basis in law.
7. At the very outset, it may be noted that the original record of permanent transfers always has been, and to this day, remains in the custody of the petitioners. Mst. Latif Begum being a transferee was at most, entitled to an attested copy of the record of permanent transfer made in her favour.
Therefore, calling upon the respondents, to prove the title of Mst. Latif Begum discloses either gross ignorance of the law (if a charitable view is taken) or the absence of good faith on the part of the concerned Government functionaries. Here, it may be pointed out that the Permanent Transfer Rules, 1961 were made and enforced by the Federal Government in exercise of powers conferred by section 35 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Relevant extracts of rule 3 of the said Rules; provides as under:-- "3. (1) When a property has been provisionally transferred under the Act of a Scheme and:--
(a) the order of transfer is a final order, and
(b) the proposed or provisional transferee has paid in full-
(i) the transfer price or the auction price of the property,
(ii) settlement fee, and
(iii) all public dues, ' a record of permanent transfer of the property in the name of the proposed or provisional transferee shall be made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner of the area in a register to be kept and maintained in the Form given in the Schedule to these rules and thereu on the I ro s ert shall stand ermanentl transferred to the transferee free from all encumbrances.
(2) An attested copy of the record of permanent transfer of any one property made in the register as aforesaid shall be obtainable on an application in writin bearing a Refugee or Displaced Persons Adhesive Stamp of the value of three rupees." (Underlining for emphasis is ours)
' From a bare reading of the above statutory rule, there remains no doubt at all that title in evacuee property stands transferred and vested in the transferee when the competent Deputy Settlement Commissioner makes a record of the transfer in the prescribed register maintained by the Settlement Department. This conveyance is complete by itself regardless of whether the transferee applies for and obtains an attested copy of the record in terms of sub-rule (2) of rule 3 ibid. The verification of Mst. Latif Begum's title, therefore, had to be made by the Government functionaries from the original record kept by them in their own custody. Any document purporting to be a copy of the original record, issued to Mst. Latif Begum, would, at best, be a copy of the original record lying with the concerned Government functionaries. We do not see from the record that any attempt was made at the relevant time to go through the original register of permanent transfers (CSC-V). In the circumstances, putting the respondents to the bother of verifying what was already available with the settlement authorities, was wholly unjustified.
8. We also refer to Rule 6 of the Permanent Transfer Rules, 1961 which sets out the procedure for correcting any error or for pointing out fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining a permanent transfer of property udder the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The relevant extracts of Rule 6 are reproduced hereinbelow for ease of reference:- "6. (1) Any person through an unstamped application in writing may inform the Settlement Authority concerned of the discovery of any error in an entry or about fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining Permanent Transfer of the Property.
(2) On receipt of such information, the Settlement Authority shall check the record and if he is satisfied that the information is false, he may record his order on the application to that effect.
(4) If the information discloses prima facie serious allegations against the transferee, then the Settlement authority may, in his discretion require the informant to deposit an amount not exceeding two months' rent of the house or the shop transferred subject to the condition that if on enquiry the allegation proves to be substantially false the amount so deposited shall be forfeited.
An enquiry into the allegations shall then be made by the Settlement Authority and a reasonable opportunity shall be given to the parties for being heard: Provided that where it appears to the Settlement Authorities that it is in the interest of the Government that an enquiry should be held, the Settlement Authority may hold an enquiry under this Sub-rule without requiring the person who gave the information to deposit any sum."
(Underlining for emphasis is ours)
' It should be obvious from the above, that the process started by the District Administration, to challenge the title of Mst. Latif Begum, even if permissible administratively after the repeal of evacuee laws, could have been initiated on the basis of some credible information, and that too, in accordance with the terms of Rule 6 (1) reproduced above. No such exercise was undertaken by any functionary of the District Administration or City Government. A casual, indeed reckless step was taken to place the title of the respondents under a cloud even though there was no valid reason for doing so, and despite the fact that there was unimpeachable documentary proof (discussed below) that title to the property came to vest in Mst. Latif Begum in the early 1960s.
9. Secondly, we note that notwithstanding the above position the title of Mst. Latif Begum had been verified by a verification committee established for this purpose. Here, we should mention that the relevant Settlement record had been verified and re-verified on three occasions. Firstly on 31-1- 1994, secondly on 7-2-1994 and thirdly on 19-4-2004. Each time the title of Mst. Latif Begum was confirmed and duly verified. The last verification is particularly, significant as it is based on documentary proof which is not open to question. The relevant minutes of the meeting of the Verification Committee, held on 19-4-2004, are reproduced hereinbelow, for ease of reference:-- "9. P.T.D. In the name of Mst. Latif Begum daughter of Rana Khuda Bukhsh in respect of Property Khasra No, 620, 620/1 situated at 45-Jail Road, Lahore.
' PTD verified on the basis of verification made by the Committee on 31-1-1994, however, the applicant produced two different orders of Lahore High Court dated 16-4-1964 and 27-2-1968 passed in Writ Petitions Nos.1434-R/62 and L.P.A. No,216/64 and two other orders No, (1) dated 26 April 1961 by "Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore Division-II, (2) Order No,3437 dated 19-6-1961 by Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Lahore Division, Lahore, are also available on the related property files which are partially burnt." (Underlining for emphasis is ours)
' It is clear from the above quoted extracts of the minutes that not only were the orders of the High Court within the custody and knowledge of the departmental authorities, the relevant record of the Settlement Department (though partially burnt) was available to the Verification Committee and was relied upon by it while verifying the title of Mst. Latif Begum.
10. It also appears from the record that the entire proceedings in respect of questioning/verifying the title of Mst. Latif Begum were taken without notice to the respondents. Had any notice been issued to them, surely the respondents would have been able to inform the concerned functionaries of the District Administration and the Province of their responsibility and the duty cast upon them, before taking action against the respondents on the basis of any allegation of defective title of their vendor, Mst. Latif Begum.
11. We now consider another important facet of the case. Our review of the available record provides very strong proof that the transfer of the property in question in favour of Mst. Latif Begum was genuine and had been validly made by the competent Settlement Authorities on the basis of proceedings undertaken by them between 1960 and 1963. In this context, we first of all, wish to refer to Writ Petition No,1434-R/1962, adverted to in the minutes of the meeting of the Verification Committee reproduced above. This writ petition was filed by one Syed Iftikhar Hussain in which, inter alia, the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Mst. Latif Begum and one Mst. Hajira Bibi were arrayed as respondents.
12. In the petition a dispute had been raised by the petitioner Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah in respect of a passage comprised in khasra numbers 621 and 622 which khasra Nos. Were adjacent to khasra No,620. The said petitioner had made an assertion that the passage was meant for his exclusive use to provide access to his property No,S-77-R-47 comprised in khasra number 626-Jail Road, Lahore. This property had been permanently transferred in his favour by the Settlement Department. The respondents including Mst. Latif Begum and Mst. Hajira Bibi had been impleaded in the writ petition because adjoining properties comprising khasra number 620, which is subject matter of the present lis, and 619, had been permanently transferred in favour of these ladies, by the Settlement Department. Mst. Hajira Bibi was transferee of some constructed area which according to her was served by the same passage which was being claimed by Syed Iftikhar Hussain for his exclusive use.
13. Writ Petition No,1434-R/1962 was heard by Mr. Justice A.R. Sheikh of the West Pakistan High Court on 13-4-1964 and was dismissed vide judgment dated 16-4-1964. There are some important aspects of the 'record in the said writ petition which are not only relevant for the adjudication of this petition but are also, in our opinion, conclusive as to the title which was conveyed and came to vest in Mst. Latif Begum on account of the permanent transfer made in her favour by the Settlement Department. It is firstly to be noted that the Chief Settlement Commissioner was a respondent in the petition. More importantly, however, there is mention of a contemporaneous series of events which took place at the time when the property was being considered for transfer in the name of Mst. Latif Begum. On the basis of record before it, the learned Judge in Chambers noted that the Addl. Settlement Commissioner had gone for a spot inspection and had, by his order dated 26-4-1961, held that the passage bearing khasra Nos. 621 and 622 will remain in the common use of the transferees of properties which fell in khasra Nos. 619 and 626 and that khasra No, 620 had been transferred to Mst. Latif Begum as demarcated.
14. The judgment in Writ Petition No, 1434-RI of 1962 then proceeded to record the fact that the Settlement Commissioner "came to the conclusion that property No,47 Jail Road, Lahore (house transferred to the petitioner [Syed Iftikhar Hussain], is in khasra No,626." Thereafter the crucial fact has been recorded that "khasra No, 620 is a plot transferred to Mst. Latif Begum respondent No,2." It has further been noted that certain quarters behind the plot transferred to Mst. Latif Begum which have been transferred to Mst. Hajira Bibi (respondent No,3 in the aforesaid writ petition), also have their access through the passage comprising khasra Nos.621 and 622.
15. After going through the judgment in Writ Petition No,1434-R of 1962, we are left in no doubt at all that title in the plot which is subject matter of the present petition and which was comprised in khasra No,620 undeniably stood transferred to Mst. Latif Begum. It is obvious that although there was serious controversy between the parties to Writ Petition No,1434-R of 1962 and the dispute between them was contentious, this dispute related only to the passage comprised in khasra Nos.621 and 622. It is equally clear to us that there never was any dispute or cloud on the title of Mst.
Latif Begum either in the early 1960s or at any subsequent time. We should also mention that the reports J of the Addl. Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner which were part of the High Court record and have been referred to in the judgment in Writ. Petition No, 1434-R of 1962, undisputably confirm that the property in question had been lawfully and validly transferred in favour of Mst. Latif Begum as far back as 1961, and was in 1963, entered in her name in the record of permanent transfers maintained under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act.
16. It is evident from the proceedings in the High Court, that Syed Iftikhar Hussain was not satisfied with the judgement rendered against him by the learned Judge in Chambers, in Writ Petition No,1434-R of 1962. He, therefore filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No, 216/1964 under section 10 of the Letters Patent. This LPA was heard and decided on 27-2-1968 by an eminent Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice of the West Pakistan High Court. The contents of the judgment in the LPA are even more forthright and explicit in providing proof of the title of Mst. Latif Begum. It has been categorically noted in the appellate judgment that Mst. Latif Begum transferred the plot bearing khasra No,620 and at the back of this plot, were quarters transferred to Mst. Hajira Bibi situated on khasra No, 619. The circumstances giving rise to the dispute as to the passage in khasra Nos. 621 and 622, have also been noted and set out in the judgment of the learned Division Bench.
The extract from this judgment which has a direct bearing on the question of title before us, is reproduced as under:-- ' "Mst. Latif Begum respondent was transferred a plot bearing Khasra No,620 and at the back of this plot: there are quarters which are transferred to Mst. Hajra Bibi and Zahoor Ahmad and are situate on Khasra No,619. Some time in 1961 the appellant started constructing a boundary wall with an object to bring the access road in Khasra Nos. 621 and 622 to his exclusive use. Mst. Latif Begum made representation to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and on the intervention of this officer the construction of the wall was stopped till the decision of the case. By his order dated the 26th of April 1961 Mr. Zia Ullah Khan, Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Lahore, after spot inspection came to the conclusion that demarcation of Khasra No, 620 transferred to Mst. Latif Begum had correctly ' been made and the passage in Khasra Nos.621 and 622 will remain common for the use of the transferees of properties in Khasra Nos.619 and 626. About the boundary wall he directed that Mst.
Latif Begum should construct it." (Underlining for emphasis is ours)
17. We find it quite extraordinary that inspite of the undisputed record of the High Court and the judgments of the learned single and appellate Benches in 1964 and 1968, which specifically deal with the question of title of the various neighbouring property owners in khasra Nos. 619, 620, 621, 622 and 626, the Government functionaries involved have chosen to question the title of Mst. Latif Begum on grounds which we find are specious.
18. From the extract of the judgment in LPA No,216 of 1964 reproduced above, we have also been given a detailed account of proceedings which had been taken within the Settlement Department at the relevant time, subsequent to the provisional allotment in favour of Mst. Latif Begum, but before the required entry was made in the record of permanent transfers in 1963. Such departmental proceedings, which were of a quasi-judicial nature, included a representation made by Mst. Latif Begum to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner complaining of the boundary wall which Syed Iftikhar Hussain had started constructing on khasra numbers 621 and 622. We also note from the above reproduced extract that Zia Ullah Khan, Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore had passed an order dated 26-4-1961 after making a spot inspection wherein he had concluded that demarcation of khasra No,620 transferred to Mst. Latif Begum had correctly been made and the said officer in fact directed that Mst. Latif Begum should construct the boundary wall which had become the subject matter of contention in the proceedings before the Settlement Department and had thereafter been agitated in Writ Petition No,1434-R of 1962.
19. What has intrigued us is that notwithstanding the fact that the title of Mst. Latif Begum and thereafter the title of the present respondents had never been disputed since 1961 and notwithstanding the judgments in Writ Petition No,1434-R of 1962 and in LPA No,216 of 1964, it was considered necessary to seek verification of the title of Mst. Latif Begum. This was done in utter disregard of the acknowledged legal position that the entire original record was in the custody of the petitioners as required by law and that the present respondents could, at best, have produced attested copies only, which were issued to Mst. Latif Begum under rule 3 (reproduced above) of the Permanent Transfer Rules, 1961.
20. Having considered the judgments in Writ Petition No,1434-R of 1962 and LPA No,216/1964 and the Settlement proceedings therein, we have come to the conclusion that Mst. Latif Begum was the undisputed transferee of the property in question and there was no need at all, in view of the law and statutory rules and the aforesaid judgments, to seek any additional verification of Mst. Latif Begum's title from any quarter. Nonetheless, additional verifications were made by the competent Verification Committee and this fact was also within the knowledge of the functionaries of the Provincial and District administrations. We must emphasize at this juncture that when this petition was heard partly on 30-3-2010, we had repeatedly asked Mr. Mahmood A. Sheikh, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners to indicate, that specific portion of the record which had created suspicion in the District Government, and which could be taken as legally sustainable ground for initiating a probe into an undisputed title spanning close to 45 years. He was unable to do so. On the contrary, he acknowledged that the CSC Registers which contained the original record of permanent transfers, did show Mst. Latif Begum as the transferee of the plot in question.
21. We also note from the contents of the judgment impugned before us that the learned Division Bench in ICA No, 125 of 2006, itself took pains to examine the record and to ascertain the history of the allotment starting from the application made to the Settlement Authorities by Mst. Latif Begum on 15-6-1960 and the issuance of a PTO on 10-12-1960 by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner in her favour. The learned Division Bench during the course of hearing also went through the original record produced before it and noted that "there was no tampering, interpolation or rubbing anywhere in the entries appearing in respect of the property in dispute."
This much, was also conceded by learned counsel for the petitioners.
22. We now take up for consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners. He did not make any reference to or even acknowledge the existence of the proceedings within the Settlement Department including the order dated 26-4-1961 by the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner proving the allotment in favour of Mst. Latif Begum. He only advanced feeble and conjectural arguments, which will be considered shortly, in an effort to show that the title of Latif Begum was defective. However, not one word has been uttered in respect of the litigation which had taken place in the early 1960's and in particular, the record and judgments in Writ Petition No,1434-R of 1962 and LPA No, 216 of 1964, which have been discussed above. In our opinion, the genuineness and authenticity-of the title of Mst. Latif Begum stood established in these proceedings. The LPA was decided on 27-2-1968. The Settlement Department was a party throughout these proceedings for a period of six years, but did not, even remotely suggest any doubts or concerns as to the title transferred to Mst. Latif Begum. Additionally, as noted earlier in this judgment, the original record of permanent transfers was available with the petitioners and it showed Mst. Latif Begum as the transferee of the property in question. This was also confirmed by an examination of the original record of permanent transfers, by the learned Division Bench in the High Court. Yet no reference, whatsoever, has been made to the original record. It is apparent that vast resources of the Government have been expended with the ostensible objective of protecting Government property but the most relevant and authentic record has either been unjustifiably ignored or deliberately concealed.
23. The other argument on which a great deal of stress was placed by learned counsel for the petitioners was that the mutation in favour of Mst. Latif Begum was sanctioned in 1994 i,e, 31 years after the permanent transfer deed issued in her favour. From this circumstance, learned counsel wanted the Court to infer that the transfer of title in R favour of Mst. Latif Begum was fraudulent. This submission is without merit in view of the record discussed above, through which the title of Mst.
Latif Begum undeniably stood proved. The primacy of the original Settlement record in matters of proof has been emphasized by the Chief Settlement Commissioner (petitioner No,1) himself, but strangely, the Revenue Record has been relied upon for suspecting the title of Mst. Latif Begum.
Secondly, it may be noted that a mutation in the revenue record does not create title. It merely records the transfer of title S which may otherwise have taken place in accordance with law. It is to be reiterated that title came to vest in Mst. Latif Begum by virtue of the entries made in the record of permanent transfers. If at all, the long intervening period between the date of permanent transfer and the date of the mutation in the Revenue Record, had evoked a suspicion in the functionaries of the District Government, the easiest way to resolve the same would have been to examine the record of the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Petitioner No,1) or to inspect the files of the High Court in Writ Petition No, 1434-R of 1962 and LPA No, 216 of 1964, wherein the relevant proceedings and record of the Settlement Department had been filed and were duly noted by the learned Judge in Chambers and the appellate Bench deciding the aforesaid petition and appeal.
For some unexplained reason, recourse to this mode of inquiry was not resorted to.
24. It was then argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that that the respondents could not have agitated any grievance against a mere inquiry. Keeping in view the discussion above, we are inclined to believe that the respondents may have been proceeded against without valid basis and for considerations not entirely justified. Furthermore, even if it is believed that the inquiry into Mst. Latif Begum's title was not maliciously motivated, it could be seen as being negligent and reckless.
25. This brings us to the second aspect of the case adverted to at the start of this judgment. On 30- 3-2010, this case was heard partly. On account of some vexing questions arising at the said hearing, we felt the necessity of hearing Mr. Kamran Rasool, former Chief Secretary, Punjab and Mr. Khalid Sultan who, at the relevant time, was District Coordination Officer, Lahore. They were, therefore, summoned for 2-4-2010 and heard. Mr. Kamran Rasool stated at the outset that corruption had permeated the Settlement Department. It was, therefore implied that he had ordered a probe into the title of Mst. Latif Begum, after receiving a communication from Mr. Khalid Sultan and as a duty cast on him under the Rules of Business. Some concerns arise on account of this statement. A confession of corruption and flawed governance ought to have resulted in processes for cleaning up the administration of the Settlement Department. Measures should also have been adopted to ensure that bona fide purchasers such as the respondents who had undertaken the most rigorous due diligence possible in the circumstances of the case, and had made all necessary inquiries from the Settlement and Revenue Departments before purchasing the property from Mst. Latif Begum, could be secure in the title which they had acquired. The respondents were extremely cautious and had bought the property on the basis of representations of genuineness inherent in the relevant Settlement/Revenue Records and from the certification of title by a competent Verification Committee established as part of the administrative structure of the Settlement department. It is implicit, prima facie, from the submissions of Mr. Kamran Rasool, that for him the consequences of corruption within the Settlement Department should be visited upon bona fide purchasers such as the respondents in this petition. This attitude is hard to accept.
Finality, at some point must attach to verification of title in evacuee property, otherwise potential abuse of process is likely to perpetuate corruption rather than curbing it. Mr. Kamran Rasool also made a written, submission which was filed in Court on 2-4-2010. It has, inter alia, been stated therein as under:-- "3. On the basis of detailed report from the DCO, who was the Principal Officer of the District, and the fact that extremely valuable property belonging to the Govt. Was being claimed on doubtful documents, I exercised my coordination and supervisory function as laid down in Rule 8 read with Rule 42(5) of the Rules of Business 1974 and referred the issue to the BOR for verification. To do otherwise, in the face of report placed before me, would have been dereliction of duty and disregard of public interest." (Underlining for emphasis is ours)
' Rule 42(5) of the Rules of Business of the Punjab Government has been cited by Mr. Kamran Rasool. We, however, note that the said sub-rule stood deleted vide notification dated 13-12-2001 i,e, much before the former Chief Secretary purported to act thereunder. There are also other parts of his written submission which have raised unanswered questions.
26. Likewise. Mr. Khalid Sultan, who was DCO, Lahore at the relevant time, has submitted a statement. This statement also does not, prima facie, provide a satisfactory explanation to queries which have arisen in this case. The simple expedience of questioning the EDO (Revenue) would have immediately disclosed to the former DCO that the EDO (Revenue) had initiated a probe without homework and also, it appears, without having authority in this behalf. It is also evident that at no point were the respondents called to satisfy the queries which appear to have been raised by the revenue functionaries. We also note from the statutory provisions and Rules discussed above as also the written submissions Mr. Kamran Rasool, former Chief Secretary and Mr. Khalid Sultan, former DCO Lahore that they could have found ample evidence of the title conveyed by the Settlement Department to Mst. Latif Begum had they simply cared to question their own subordinates.
7. The Member Colonies, Board of Revenue, Punjab (Petitioner No,2) who was asked by the Chief Secretary to look into Mst. Latif Begum's title, has made a noting in paragraph 22 dated 3-4-2004, to the following effect:- "22. PTD No, 264 was verified by Verification Committee. Committee verified this PTD despite the fact that it admits vide its Minutes of meeting that Register CSC-IV and CSC-V are not available.
These two registers are essential documents forming part of PTO/PTD record particularly with regard to payment of government dues. Verification of PTD in the absence of these registers carries no legal basis. Further, presuming, for the sake of argument that this property was a house then under Settlement Scheme No,
1. Verification Committee should have perused such record as submission/scrutiny of application claimant, determination of entitlement, determination of dues payable by tranferee, notice of demand, payment by transferee, transfer of property etc. There is no evidence as per minutes of meeting of Verification Committee that a thorough scrutiny on these titles was made prior to verification of PTD No, 264."
' This extract appears to be in conflict with the minutes of the Verification Committee meeting held on 19-2-2004, reproduced above and, therefore, raises concerns and doubts which require explanation.
28. In the foregoing circumstances, while upholding the impugned judgment dated 27-3-2007 with costs, we direct the office to create a separate file and issue notices to Mr. Kamran Rasool and Mr. Khalid Sultan and to the petitioners, for a date in Court in the second week of June so that their point of view can be understood and appropriate action, if justified, can be taken.
29. Lastly, Mr. Khalid Sultan, former DCO, Lahore has brought to our notice an incident, which took place when he was leaving the Court room on 2-4-2010. He has submitted as under:-- "The applicant wishes to bring to the notice of the honourable Court a very unpleasant incident which took place when the applicant was stepping out of the court room. One .Of the associates of the respondents present in court, at the same time, came out of the court and hurled abuses at the applicant in the presence of M/s. Noor Muhammad Awan, Advocate Supreme Court, Malik Mushtaq Ahmad Norani, Advocate and Khushi Muhammad Nazir, OSD, CM Secretariat."
(KHALID SULTAN)
' Former District Coordination Officer, Lahore ' Presently posted as Chief Secretary State of Azad ' Jammu and Kashmir."
' Notice shall also issue to the respondents who shall appear in person so that this serious incident can be probed and necessary action initiated against persons(s) found responsible for the same.