' MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.--- Through this single judgment, we propose to dispose of instant Writ Petition as well as connected Writ Petition bearing No.475 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions.
2. The petitioner is daughter of Ex-Nawab Muhammad Shah Khisro and grand daughter of Ex- Nawab Shah Jehan of Ex; Dir State. Through Notification No . 10/16-SOTA-11 /72-1522 dated 15-9- 1972, on the basis of recommendations of Dir-Swat Land Disputes Enquiry Commission, the private or personal properties of late Nawab Sir Shah Jehan, Ex-Ruler of the State, were notified and were duly specified in schedule annexed to the notification. Similarly as per Notification No.10/16- SOTA- 11/72-1520 dated 15-9-1972, the State properties of the former State of Dir, were notified in a separate schedule appended to the aforementioned notification. In the light of aforementioned notifications and the schedules annexed thereto the petitioner applied to the concerned authorities for separation of her property from the other property of the ' Provincial Government (State property) but she could not succeed and was constrained to approach this Court through Writ Petition No.904 of 2009, which was decided on 28-1-2010. In the light of judgment of this Court mentioned above, the petitioner submitted an application to District Officer (Revenue and Estate)/District Collector, Dir for implementation of judgment of this Court and as per contention of petitioner, the order passed by this Court was not finalized/implemented in letter and spirit, which constrained the petitioner to again move this Court for implementation of earlier order of this Court.
' Arguments heard, record perused.
3. There is no need to furnish details of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as the prayer of petitioner was confined only to the extent of implementation of judgment dated 28-1- 2010, passed by this Court and that too in the light of above referred notifications dated 15th September, 1972.
4. The schedule annexed with the notification referred above have not been disputed by any of the parties. The rights of some of the applicants who have made applications to implead them party in the instant petition, to some extents had already been finalized by this Court through judgment dated 11-12-1989, passed in Writ Petition No.286 of 1982, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.21-P of 1991, decided on 16-12-1992. (Even otherwise the petitioner claims the identification and separation of property devolved on Late Nawab and that of State property, which does not affect the rights of individuals, like the impleaded applicants or who had applied for the purpose). This Court is not going to determine the rights of parties, which had already been settled through gazette notification and the schedule annexed thereto.
5. For the convenience we reproduce the relevant Para of the judgment of this Court dated 28-1- 2010, which is as under:- "It is the Constitutional and Statutory duty of the respondents to redress the genuine grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law to locate and identify the property of the petitioner and that of the Government, to draw a line of demarcation between the two, so that her apprehension that the property has been encroached upon by the Provincial Government, is redressed in a fair manner. It must be done strictly in the way as was directed by the Revenue Appellate Court-III, referred to above vide order dated 27-10-2007."
6. Rights of the individuals are not re-visited in Writ Petition No.904 of 2009 but directions were issued to act upon already settled matters in letter and spirit. That is why the review petition filed by some of the applicants, who preferred application for impleadment in the instant petition, was dismissed in Review Petition No.22 of 2010 through order dated 13-1-2011. The relevant Para of the judgment is reproduced as under:--- "As our order dated 28-1-2010 is based on the judgment of Revenue Appellate Court-III dated 27- 10-2007, therefore, it has in no manner conferred any title of any other right on the respondent- lady but has simply directed that the order of the Revenue Appellate Court be given effect and demarcation be carried out in the manner, as prescribed by the Land Revenue Rules. This shall not affect the vested right of the present applicants in any manner nor we think that the order is adverse to their rights."
7. According to the mandate of Article 4 of the. Constitution, it is the duty and obligation of public functionaries to decide the applications of citizens without fear, favour and nepotism. It is also settled principle of law that no body is above Constitution in terms of mandate of Constitution vide Article 5(2) of the Constitution. Similarly no body should be penalized by the inaction of the public functionaries as per mandate of Constitution. When the public functionaries fail to proceed and decide the cases of citizens on account of which the legislature is compelled by the aforementioned circumstances to add section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, according to which it is the bounden duty and obligation of public functionaries to decide the applications of citizens in accordance with law, with reasons within reasonable time as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Karachi"
(1998 SCM R 2268).
8. It is not only the duty of Courts to provide justice to the people of this country but it is also the duty of every organ and functionaries to provide justice by discharging their duties in accordance with law. The A functionaries of State are expected to give due respect to the dictum laid down by the Superior Courts, which is not congenial and conducive for the existence of the country but also to run the State smoothly with mutual cooperation, respect and understanding.
9. Petitioner had filed earlier constitutional petition, which was disposed of with the directions to the authorities to decide her application. Despite lapse of considerable time, the authorities failed to perform their legal duty and finalize the same, which constrained the petitioner to approach this Court for redressal of her grievance.
10. So far as the relief claimed in the connected Writ Petition No.475 of 2009 is concerned, the grievance of petitioner would be redressed after finalization of proceedings directed by this Court in the preceding Para. Therefore, there is no need to comment upon the merit of that petition.
11. In view of what has been discussed above, respondents are directed to finalize the proceedings by implementing order of this Court dated 28-1-2010, passed in Writ Petition No.904 of 2009 in letter and spirit, without any further delay and conclude the same within a period of two months, after providing proper hearing to all concerned including the petitioner. Respondents are further directed to submit final report to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within the stipulated period. The office is directed to provide one copy of this order to the Worthy Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through learned Additional Advocate General for notice, necessary action and compliance.
' With these observations, this petition along with connected Writ IC Petition No.475 of 2009, stand disposed of.