' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.--- These are three Writ Petitions Nos.33-R-2009, 35-R-2009, 93-R-2009, in which the subject matter as well as parties are same so all these three writ petitions are being decided through this single consolidated judgment.
2. Brief facts as narrated in Writ Petition No,33-R of 2009 are that suit land measuring 1 kanal 16 marla bearing Khasra No,134 situated in Revenue Estate of Mouza Mozang, Shanan Road, GOR-I, Lahore which was originally evacuee property and after partition of sub-continent one Mustansar Atta deceased along with respondent No,3 Ghulam Qadir son of Shah Muhammad took over the possession of suit land and constructed a partition wall dividing the aforesaid plot in two different portions of 18 marlas (approximately) each. Respondent No,3 raised the construction of three rooms in the portion of the plot in his possession and Mustansar Atta deceased constructed two rooms and a kitchen in the remaining 18 marlas possessed by him. On the advent of settlement operation, Mustansar Atta deceased and the respondent No, 3 made a joint application BS Form bearing registration No, 1138, dated 11-1-1971 for the transfer of the total plot in their joint names.
3. The notified officer vide order dated 18-12-1976 found Mustansar Atta deceased and respondent No,3 (Ghulam Qadir) entitled to the transfer of the said plots in equal share. The terms of the transfer order transferee owners paid the price of the plot, amount of rent and settlement fee etc. By depositing the same in government treasury whereafter transfer Order No,92610 dated 23-5-1990 was issued by the Settlement Authorities in their favour.
4. The said Mustansar Atta transferee died on 28-1-2003 and was succeeded by the respondents Nos. 5 to 8 as his legal heirs. On 2-3-2005, respondents Nos.5 to 8 transferred all their rights and title in respect of land measuring 18 marla bearing Khasra No, 134 vide sale deed No,2510 dated 2- 3-2005 registered with sub-Registrar Data Ganjh Bakhsh Town, Lahore to the petitioner.
5. That on 10-1-2006 in the absence of the petitioner, the respondent No,3 removed the gate, demolished the dividing wall and rooms and forcibly and illegally dispossessed the petitioner from the property who feeling aggrieved filed complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act for the restoration of possession against respondent No, 3 which was decided in favour of the petitioner up to High Court. Meanwhile on 21-11-2006, the petitioner in order to complete her record made an application to the Excise and Taxation Department who directed the petitioner to get the order verified by the respondent No,2 who vide order dated 22-12-2008 returned the case on the ground that the case property is of very valuable nature and Verification Committee is of the view that after hearing both the parties the State land may be resumed in favour of State on merit. This order was assailed before Member Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner who finally decided the matter and gave the following findings vide order dated 19-2-2009:- "Plot measuring 1 Kanal & 16 Marais which is open and unconstructed is the property of the Provincial Government (formerly Evacuee). It is situated on the canal adjacent to Danepur Lane and Shanan Road, GOR-I, Lahore. This is the area which carries, the highest value for residential plots in Lahore. In the event of disposal by open auction at site after due publicity, this property be sold to the highest bidder or it can be used for the construction of Bungalow of GOR-I. District Officer (Revenue), Lahore is directed to protect this property from encroachment and illegal occupation. A copy of this order shall also be delivered in the office of Chief Secretary, Punjab and Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab for information. The decision in this case was reserved on 26-1-2009 and it is being announced today. Parties should be informed of the decision immediately."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is bonafide purchaser for consideration without notice and her rights are very much protected under the Transfer of Property Act, 1876.The property in dispute was validly transferred to Mustanser Atta deceased by the settlement authorities. Transfer Order No,92610 dated 23-5-1990 was issued to the deceased on payment of price, settlement fee and other dues which was deposited in the government treasury.
The petitioner at the time of entering into the bargain for the purchase of the property was handed over the original transfer order along with other documents including site plan etc. Therefore, impugned order dated 19-2-2009 passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab, Lahore for cancellation of transfer Order No,92610 dated 23-5-1990 and to annul subsequent transaction i.e, sale deed No, 2510 with regard to the property Khasra No,134 measuring 18 marla situated in Revenue Estate Mouza Mozang, Shanan Road GOR-I be declared illegal without lawful authority and is liable to be set aside.
7. Learned counsel for the Writ Petition No,35-R contends that property comprising on Khasra No,134 Shanan Road, situated in Mouza Moang measuring 1 Kanal 16 Marla was allotted to one Muhammad Bashir son of Daulat Ali against PTO No,400776 dated 14-3-1961 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner-I, Lahore and later on PTD was issued to him. The said allottee transferred one half of the said property measuring 18-Marlas from Khasra No,134 in favour of the petitioner Rao Muhammad Safdar Khan against the consideration price of Rs,36,500,00 vide registered sale deed No,5750 book No,1 volume No,1501 dated 22-8-2008 and possession of the same was also handed over to the petitioner where the petitioner constructed a house comprises of two bed rooms, attach bathrooms one servant quarter etc. On verification, verified committee unanimously decided that since there are as many as four contestants for property bearing Khasra No,134, therefore, the matter be referred to the Member Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner for decision who vide order dated 19-2-2009 decided the matter as above.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has frankly admitted that civil litigation between Muhammad Bashir and rival claiminants is pending in the Civil Court with respect of above property. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Chief Settlement Commissioner is no more in existence of order so impugned order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner is no more in existence so impugned order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner is void ab inito and is liable to be set aside. He further contends that petitioner was condemned unheard, therefore, impugned order dated 19-2-2009 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be struck down on this ground alone.
9. Learned counsel for the Writ Petition No,93-R of 2009 contends that the petitioner migrated from East Punjab, India on the partition of the Sub-Continent in the year 1947 and in the year 1965, the petitioner occupied 1 kanal 16 maral land belonging to the evacuee owner. The petitioner in the first instance used to for tethering his cattle, like buffaloes and cows and he was engaged in selling milk to earn his livelihood. The petitioner remained in continuous possession of the suit property till 19-7- 2006. The petitioner after the occupation of said area, raised pacca construction of four rooms, high boundary wall and gate etc. And obtained electricity connection and also applied for providing sui-gas.
10. Learned counsel further contends that in the year 2005, one Maqsood Ahmed son of Feroze Din who falsely claimed to be owner of the portion of said evacuee land tried to dispossess the petitioner and on the report of petitioner, a case F.I.R. No,196/2005 under sections 448, 511 P.P.C.
Against the said Maqsood Ahmed was registered in Police Station Racecourse, Lahore. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that Maqsood Ahmed, Mustansar Atta, Azra Bibi, Bashir Ahmed, Rao Safdar, Javed Ahmed were active members of group of land grabbers. They tried to take over possession of the plot from the petitioner on the false claim of being owners and ultimately on 20-1-2006, the respondent Azra Bibi filed complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 in respect of 18 marlas of suit land seeking the dispossession of petitioner with the false plea that she is owner in possession of property to the extent of 18 Marla in Khasra No,134 and obtained the order of petitioner's dispossession.
11. The petitioner approached the Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Board of Revenue through the petition stating therein that the aforesaid persons were active members of a notorious gang of land grabbers and that the petitioner had been in occupation of said plot since 1965 and he also applied for transfer of area on 29-9-2003 of the evacueee property measuring 1 kanal 16 marlas and sought grant of ownership rights according to the terms of the department on the basis of long possession but request of petitioner was turned down vide order dated 19-2-2000 passed by the Member (Judicial-V)/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Ghulam Qadir is in possession of suit land since 1965 who has also constructed four rooms and boundary wall and obtained utility connections in the suit land. He is entitled to be granted propriety rights under the law and the impugned order be declared as illegal, void, without lawful authority and liable to be set aside. In support of their contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied on PLD 1991 SC 84, PLD 1993 Supreme Court 1047, 2009 YLR 1255 and PLD 2009 Lahore 78.
12. On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appeared on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed all the writ petitions and has contended that Board of Revenue enjoys the power to declare the document as forged documents. He has supported the impugned order and has contended that writ petitions be dismissed.
13. Arguments heard. Record perused.
14. Admittedly, Civil litigation is pending between the petitioners who are rival contestants in respect of same property which is admittedly the area carries the highest value in Lahore. In Writ Petition No,35-R of 2009, the petitioner in ground-F of his petition has categorically conceded that civil litigation, between Muhammad Bashir and rival claimants is pending in the Civil Court with respect to the suit property. Similarly in Writ Petition No,93-R of 2009 filed by Ghulam Qadir, petitioner, in sub-para No,2 of para No,11 of his writ petition, Ghulam Qadir has frankly conceded that the Transfer Order No,92610 in his name and Mustansar Atta was forged and fabricated documents and both were never in possession of plot and there was no permanent construction thereon. In a situation, where the allotments relied upon are made by the Settlement Authorities were illegal and without jurisdiction and were based on fraud and forgery, in that eventuality, even if, Board of Revenue which exposed the fraud and forgery and set aside illegal transfer of properties by its own orders, High Court would not in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction annul the order of Board of Revenue even though it was clearly without jurisdiction. Relied on law laid down in case titled "Muhammad Baran and others v. Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others reported as PLD 1991 Supreme Court 691. In addition, civil litigation between rival claimants and other, complicated question of title, possession and allotment are B involved which cannot be looked in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Admittedly, civil litigation already pending between the parties and in such like matter, civil court has jurisdiction to entertain in C the matter and the jurisdiction of Civil Court cannot be ousted. Relied on 2009 SCMR 1233.
' In the light of above discussion, no interference is called for. .