' CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ,J This, consolidated judgment shall dispose of, I.C.A. No,189 of 2006 and I.C.A. No, 190 of 2006 as common questions of fact and law are invblved in these Intra-Court Appeals which have been directed against the judgment dated 24-5-2006 passed by learned Single Judge in Chamber, whereby the Writ Petition No,103-R of 2004 filed by the Province of Punjab was allowed while the Writ Petition No,47/R of 2004 filed by the appellants was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that one Amir son of Dhan Singh was owner of land in village Ranija Phahar Tehsil Lachrnangarh of Alwar State (India). He had sole son Akkey Khan who was predeceased and was survived through his son namely Mangtoo. Amir was killed during 1947 disturbances and Mangtoo, his grandson, filed Claim Form No,21119 for the land abandoned by Amir in India. This claim was duly verified by the Central Record Office but no allotment could be made on this claim and some fraudulent persons prepared a duplicate copy of the said claim and obtained fraudulent allotments in District Sheikhupura and Gujranwala. Subsequently, these allotments were cancelled under Martial Law Regulation Order 49 and the land so allotted was confiscated in favour of the Government. After a long time, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner Mangtoo came to know about this fraud and he applied for allotment of land against his valid and verified claim but his request was rejected on the ground that the allotment stood banned by the Government vide memo dated 25-6-1973. This Court held that memorandum dated 25-6-1973 assailed in the Writ Petition already stood declared to be null and void in the case of Inayat Bibi reported as PLD 1974 Lah.
252.
3. Mangtoo being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No,1155/R/78 and during the pendency of this Writ Petition Mangtoo also died and the present appellants were impleaded as party being his legal heirs. The said Writ Petition was accepted by this Court vide Judgment dated 27-10-1996. In pursuance of judgment dated 27-10-1996, Secretary (S&R)/Notified Officer/Settlement Commissioner (Urban and Rural), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, vide order dated 31-10-2003 allotted land measuring 125 kanals, 12 marlas against 473 units to the legal heirs of deceased Mangtoo Khan.
4. Against the allotment of 125 kanals, 12 marlas, the Province of Punjab through Chief Settlement Commissioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court through Writ Petition No,103/R of 2004. The petitioners, on the other hand, felt aggrieved against non-adjustment of their entitlement as whole and as such, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court through Writ Petition No,47/R of 2004. This Court vide order dated 24-5-2006 allowed Writ Petition. No,103/R of 2004 filed by the Province of Punjab and dismissed the Writ Petition No,47/R of 2004 filed by the petitioners.
Hence these Intra-Court Appeals.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants are entitled to be allotted land in the light of judgment of this Court passed in Writ Petition No,1155/R of 1978. Against total units, the Notified Officer/Settlement Commissioner, Urban and Rural Punjab, Board of Revenue Punjab Lahore has allotted 473 units to the appellants i.e, 125 kanals, 12 marla while the respondent has not complied with the judgment of this Court and he is not providihg remaining land. Learned counsel argues that the impugned order dated 24-5-2006 passed in Writ Petition No,47/R of 2004 and Writ Petition No,103/R of 2004 by learned Single Judge in Chamber is a nullity in the eye of law as no law permits that the judgment of this Court be reviewed by the other learned Bench. Learned counsel points out that the matter of the appellants falls within the definition of pending cases, therefore, the impugned judgment be set aside and the respondent be directed to comply with the judgment passed in Writ Petition No,1155/R of 1978. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon PLD 1991 SC 691, PLD 1999 SC 699, PLD 2002 SC 5, 1999 SCM R 1719, 2004 SCM R 270 and 2005 SCM R 1380.
6.. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed these Intra-Court Appeals and has fully supported the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the respondent has emphasized more on the issue that the case of the appellants does not fall within the definition of the pending cases. He has further argued that land measuring 125 kanals, 12 marlas against 473 units has been allotted to the appellants vide order dated 31-10-2003 passed by the Notified Officer which has rightly been set aside. He avers that the judgment passed in Writ Petition No,1155/R of 1978 being void ab initio is not executable.
7. We have heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record with their able assistance.
8. The crucial points in this case are that whether the case of the appellants falls within the definition of pending cases which has been defined in section 2 of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975) which is reproduced as under:-- "(2) Upon the repeal of the aforesaid Acts and Regulations, all proceedings which, immediately before such repeal, may be pending before the authorities appointed thereitnder shall stand transferred for final disposal to such officers as may be notified by the Provincial Government in the official Gazette and all cases decided by the Supreme Court or a High Court after such repeal which would have been remanded to any such authority in the absence of such repeal shall ,be remanded to the officers notified as aforesaid."
9. Perusal of record highlights that Amir son of Dhan Singh migrated from India who was murdered during the disturbances of 1947. But after the death of Amir, Murad Khan and Abdul Qayyum fraudulently got duplicate claims issued in their names Thereafter, Martial Law was enforced in the country and under the Martial Law Regulation Order No,49, the duplicate claim issued in the names of Murad Khan and Abdul Qayyum was cancelled which was obtained by misrepresentation, concealment of relevant facts and playing fraud with the department. Murad Khan was also prosecuted by the Military Court who was convicted and sentenced for five years. Thereafter, Mangtoo, predecessor-ininterest of the appellants filed a Writ Petition No, 1155/R/1978 which was allowed on 27-10-1996 in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. The operative part of the judgment is reproduced as under:- "For what has been stated above, this writ petition is accepted and direction in the name of mandamas is issued to the respondent (now Notified Officer) to verify as to whether the allotments obtained in the name of Amir in District Sheikhupura, by the above mentioned Murad Khan and others, still subsist or not. In case these allotments have not been formally cancelled, the same shall ensure for the benefit of petitioners and entries of their names as successorin- interest of Amir right holder, shall be incorporated therein. In ease the above allotments have been cancelled by this time the petitioners shall be allotted land, in lieu of outstanding verified units in the name of Amir, out of evacuee land now forming part of Provincial Government pool anywhere in Punjab."
10. In pursuance of judgment dated 27-10-1996, Secretary (S&R)/Notified Officer/ Settlement Commissioner (Urban and Rural), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, vide order dated 31-10-2003 allotted land measuring 125 kanals, 12 marlas against 473 units. The question arises as to whether the case. Of Mangtoo deceased falls within the definition of pending cases. When we go through the wording of section 2 of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), it clearly provides that all matters which were pending or any matter which was pending before a superior court In appeal or revision, or which was pending because of remand by a superior court, at the time of Repeal of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975) will fall within the definition of pending cases. The matter in hand was initiated in year 1978 when deceased Mangtoo filed Writ Petition No,1155/R of 1978 after 4 years of Repeal of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975). Therefore, we are of the considered view that the case of deceased Mangtoo does not fall within the definition of pending cases. Only such matters, which were either actively pending consideration before Authorities for final disposal or had been remanded by the High Court or Supreme Court, were to be finalized by the Notified Officer. Settlement or Rehabilitation Authorities, by express positive assertion had no jurisdiction to enteriain any fresh petition or representation. Where question of entitlement concerning agricultural property was neither remanded by Supreme Court nor any such directions were made by the High Court whereby Notified Officer on its strength could commence proceedings, any petition or representation filed with regard to matter which otherwise stood finalized long back or even where aggrieved person might believe to have legitimate claim, could not be entertained by Chief Settlement Commissioner or Notified Officer or any other Settlement Authority by virtue of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. In this behalf, benefited from the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case, "Nawabzada Zafar All Khan and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore and others, reported as 1999 SCM R 1719.
11. The next important question is that what are the effects of judgment dated 27-10-1996 passed in Writ. Petition No 1155/R of 1978. The perusal of judgment highlights that learned counsel for the respondent did not provide adequate assistance to the learned Judge of this Court. The judgment passed in Writ Petition No, 1155/R of 1978 is void ab initio which should be ignored because it has no binding effect on the parties. In the light of law laid down in case "Evacuee Trust Property Board v.
Mst. Sakina and others" reported as 2007 SCM R 262, which provides that when the basic order is without lawful authority and void ab initio, the entire superstructure raised thereon falls on the ground automatically and no limitation would run against a void order. Similarly, a pure question of law could be raised at any time of the proceedings. Further, when no proceedings were pending before the repeal of law, the High Court was not legally competent to make any direction. The High Court even in a first or an appropriate case could only remand the case to the relevant authorities for consideration of the right and interest of a person according to law in order to meet the ends of justice and not to determine the right and entitlement of a person itself. Disposal of constitutional petition based on illegal and tainted concession and direction for its implementation was a coram non judice and as such had no binding effect. Respectful reliance is placed on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case, "Member (S&R)/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Punjab Lahore and another v. Syed Ashfaque All and others" reported as PLD 2003 SC 132 and in case, "Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member, Board of Revenue (S&R Wing), Punjab, Lahore v. Akhtar Munir and 6 others" reported as PLD 2003 SC 603. The law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the case in hand.
12. In the light of what has been discussed above, we are of the unanimous view that the case of appellants does not fall within the domain of pending cases. The land measuring 125 kanals, 12 marlas allotted to the appellants against 473 units by Notified Officer vide order dated 31-10-2003 was rightly set aside. The judgment dated 27-10-1996 passed in Writ Petition No,115/R of 1978 is an order void ab initio having no backing of law and, thus, is not binding on the parties. Resultantly, instant I.C.A. No,189 of 2006 and I.C.A. No,190 of 2006 are devoid of any merit, hence dismissed.
' I.C.As. Dismissed.