' ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.---This revision petition has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 7-3-2011 passed by learned District Judge, D.I. Khan whereby appeal of petitioners against judgment and decree dated 31-5-2010 passed by learned trial Court, was dismissed.
' Arguments heard and record perused.
2. A perusal of record reveals that respondents filed a suit against Central Government and others for declaration to the effect that they are owner in possession of the property mentioned in the heading of plaint situated in Moza Miran Tehsil and District Dera Ismail Khan acquired vide mutation Nos.109 and 110 attested on 26-6-1975 on payment of sale consideration to the original allottee namely Ismail s/o Shadi Khan, allotted to him by the Central Government in pursuance to his claim No,12806 vide RL-11 Exh.PW.2/4. The plaintiffs claimed to be bona fide purchaser of the property on payment of sale consideration from the original owner. Mutation No,109 contained the entry regarding attestation of mutation No,110 and their names were incorporated in the revenue record and since then are in possession of the property. None including petitioners have raised any objection regarding allotment of property to the original allottee Ismail and remained silent for a considerable long time.
3. Deputy Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 30-10-1995 cancelled the allotment made in favour of original allottee Ismail s/o Shadi Khan and thereafter Robakar No,221/PB dated 27-11-1995 issued for the purpose. No notice to this effect has been served upon the plaintiff who being the purchaser on payment of sale consideration claims to be bona fide claimant and was in possession of the property, however after cancellation the property was retransferred to the Central Government vide mutation Nos.1283 and 1284 attested on 30-12-1996 and vide Mutation Nos.1285 to 1288 of even date and mutation No,1326 dated 24-3-1997 the property was transferred in favour of defendant/predecessor of defendants and subsequently inheritance mutations were also attested. The other side contested the suit by raising plea that the allotment made in favour of original allottee/defendant No,26 Ismail s/o Shadi Khan was the result of fraud and was later on rightly cancelled by the authority. It was also claimed that the property was allotted to Eida s/o Manda predecessor in interest of defendants Nos.6 to 14 vide claim No,3174 and was later on devolved upon defendants Nos.6 to 14 vide claim No,3174 and are legal owners of the same who in turn have sold the same in favour of defendants Nos.15 to 18. Written statement filed by defendants Nos.15 to 18 have gone a step ahead by stating that defendant No,26 was allotted property in District Okara Punjab and D.1. Khan and after affording opportunity to the legal heirs of defendant. No,26, the claim was found bogus and cancelled by authority vide order dated 30-10-1995 which has attained finality and cannot be questioned before Civil Court. Defendant No,24 filed separate written statement claiming defendant No,26 as a fictitious person however took the plea that civil Court has got no jurisdiction as only notified Officer has the authority to look into the matter. He claimed his title by dint of mutation No,1749 dated 9-8-1989 and prayed for dismissal of suit. Defendants Nos.1 to 5 have filed separate written statement. The disputed property was transferred in favour of Amir Ali through mutation No,1326 on 24-3-1997 and on his death devolved upon his LRs/defendants vide Mutation No,1359 attested on 27-9-1997. In fact claim of Amir was not available and statement of P.W.2 is clear to this effect with special reference to Exh.PW.2/19. The witness deposed that claim of Amir Ali was fraudulent. All these mutations attested after repeal of laws would have no binding effect upon the rights of plaintiff/respondents as attested during pendency of suit hit under the doctrine of lis pendens in terms of Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
4. The petitioners were not initially arrayed as party to the suit however on their application they have been made party and at present they are left with no interest as they have transferred the property during pendency of instant petition in favour of Muhammad Ayub Khan s/o Gul Mir Khan of Sehkai South Waziristan Agency who has moved a Civil Miscellaneous bearing No,11 of 2012 in the instant revision petition for impleadment as party on the ground that he has purchased the property from present petitioners during pendency of instant petition and at present the contest is only in the instant case between newly added respondent No,30 who was made party by this Court vide order dated 6-1-2014 and the contesting respondents, as the petitioners have left with no interest as has been substituted by respondent No,30. No party should be allowed to deal with the property except with prior permission of Court during pendency of suit and if any transaction took place it would be at its own risk and cost and could not be approved by the Court at the time of final adjudication of the case. It is the purchaser who would suffer and could not claim any additional benefit as he has to follow the footsteps of the party under whom he claimed the right by dint of purchase made during pendency of the suit and had no locus standi to make out a new case as per his wish and whims. The purchaser has opted to purchase the property knowing that it is sub judice before the Court and the vendor could transfer no better title to him, could not be termed as ostensible owner and hit under the principle of lis pendens. He has to take reasonable care and to go a step ahead of the revenue record to inquire about entries in title of the vendor.
The rights of decree holders are to be protected in case transaction of sale has taken place after institution of the suit.
5. It is pertinent to mention that respondent No,30 has acquired the property during pendency of instant revision petition and was not, party before trial Court as well as Court of appeal. Civil Miscellaneous moved for impleadment as party, allowed by this Court on 6-1-2014 does not contain any valid and plausible reason for his entitlement in the instant matter. The documents annexed with the Civil Miscellaneous could not be considered by this Court at revisional stage as these were neither produced before trial Court nor agitated by the vendors of the applicant/newly impleaded respondents. No serious efforts have been made by their vendors to produce these documents in evidence and at this juncture this Court in revisional jurisdiction has no power to consider those documents which have not seen the light of the day as yet. The newly added respondents and their vendors badly failed to produce and prove the documents at a relevant stage before proper forum. It is also important to note that the documents have not been brought from proper custody despite the fact that the witnesses were produced and they were not subjected to cross-examination with respect to documents which the impleaded respondents for the first time want to introduce in revisional jurisdiction as non-production of these documents in trial Court at the proceedings would debar the party to produce document at this stage.
6. The vital issue in the instant case is .That the claimant Ismail s/o Shadi Khan was allotted property vide claim No,12806 confirmed in the year 1972 which remained intact in his name and who in turn transferred the same in favour of respondents/plaintiffs by dint of mutations Nos.109 and 110 and was incorporated in their names in the revenue record. Mutation No,109 contains the entry regarding attestation of mutation No,110 and similarly the order of Revenue Officer on mutation No,110 contained the description of property along with mutation No,109 and was attested on 26-6-1975. No body challenged the entries in the name of original claimant for almost 25/30 years which was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner/Settlement Commissioner on Mokhbari application in terms of Sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) since repealed, in the year 1995 by dint of impugned order, questioned by plaintiffs/respondents in the instant suit passed on 30-10-1995. It is pertinent to mention that the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV 1975) was promulgated and thereafter, Issue of allotment of Evacuee land was not permissible to be reopened as first July 1974 was given as cut off date and being passed and closed transaction, the Deputy Commissioner was not competent to re-open the matter as only pending proceedings under Section 2 of the Act ibid were to be considered. The impugned order has been passed after the repeal Act ibid in the year 1995, the matter cannot be reopened and as such the order passed by Deputy Commissioner was without jurisdiction and lawful authority.
' Section 2(2) of the Repealed Act is reproduced as under:-- "Upon the repeal of the aforesaid Acts and regulation, all proceedings which immediately before such repeal, may be pending before the authorities appointed thereunder 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 shall be remanded to the officers notified as aforesaid."
8. Admittedly the reopening of matter after long period has been categorically barred with special reference to the fact that the allotment has attained finality and there is no proceeding pending before the notified Officer nor remanded by the High Court. The statute is abundantly clear to this effect that settlement authority has seized to exist and power bestowed upon the notified officer who has limited powers only to complete the residual work in terms of Section 2(2) and Section 4 of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) (XIV of 1975) and has no power to extend its jurisdiction to enter into question of legality or otherwise of any allotment made prior to repealed Act of 1975 and has attained finality. Pending cases in terms of Section 2(2) would not mean re-opening of closed and past transaction. Even the remand of cases by High Court would not empower the notified Officer to re-open the closed transactions, attained finality under the statute.
9. Civil Court has the jurisdiction to determine the vires of Act where the Tribunal/ Notified Officer travel beyond the jurisdiction in case wherein no proceedings pending before him or remanded by High Court. The notified Officer could not deal with past and closed transaction. Deputy Commissioner had acted in disregard of law and his Act being coram non judice and nullity in the eye of law, vests jurisdiction in civil Court. Wisdom is derived from 2002 SCM R 1470 wherein their Lordship has observed that:- "Issue of allotment of evacuee land had attained finality and it could not be reopened long after the repeal and settlement law with effect from 1st July 1974. In fact it was a past and closed chapter. Assistant Commissioner was neither competent nor authorized to deal with the case as there was no proceeding pending before him nor remanded by the High Court or Supreme Court on the cut off date and had acted without jurisdiction, his act in law is coram on judice and nullity in the eyes of law, therefore, civil Court had the requisite jurisdiction to determine the vires of such act and such jurisdiction and not barred."
10. The term pending proceedings has been dealt with by the apex Court in case of Government of Punjab Colonies Department Lahore v. Muhammad Yaqoob reported in PLD 2002 SC 5 and observed that pending proceedings would mean an initial step taken and contemplated under the settlement laws for allotment of land against verified claim of the claimants but the same did not finalize before repeal of Evacuee Laws. Re-opening of the case after cut off date whereby laws were repealed has not been approved by the apex Court in case of Mst. Badshah Begum v.
Additional Commissioner, reported in 2003 SCM R 629.
11. It is pertinent to mention that PW.2, concerned official from settlement department, has produced the original claim in the name of allottee Ismail s/o Shadi Khan as Exh.PW.2/4 and has admitted that there is no record regarding any land allotted to him in his claim in any other province. Exh.PW.2/8 Goshwara produced duly confirmed by the Patwari settlement department D.I.
Khan on 28-1-1997. The petitioner was unable to rebut the long standing entries made in the Jamabandi, presumption of truth attached to it and cogent and confidence inspiring evidence is required to rebut the entries. The documentary evidence produced by Settlement Authority as well as Patwari Halqa does not support the cancellation of allotment made by the Deputy Commissioner which is not based upon sound reasoning. The case of double allotment has not been proved, as the record is silent to this effect and instead official witnesses deposed that there is no record of double allotment in favour of Ismail, original allottee. Apart from the fact that the cancellation was made in absence of original allottee which is also admitted by DW.1 in his cross- examination amounts to condemnation unheard which is harsh in nature and violently against interest of natural justice. DW.1 has also admitted that the allotment in the name of Ismail was made in the year 1973-74 and up to 1994, no body raised any objection nor any inquiry proceeding was pending against him and has been purchased by Sheikh Taj Muhammad, now dead, in the year 1975. He has also admitted that at the time of inquiry Ismail was not owner of the property and instead Sheikh Taj Muhammad was made owner of the, property by him in the year 1975 however neither Sheikh Taj Muhammad was made party nor associated with the inquiry and as such on this score too, the inquiry culminated into cancellation of allotment was illegal, void ab initio and of no legal effect.
12. The Courts below have decided the lis pending before them with conscious and application of independent mind warrants no interference. I have not found any jurisdictional or legal error in the impugned judgment and am of the considered view that the Courts below were neither misdirected nor mislead in arriving to the conclusion which entirely in consonance with law and facts of the case.
'For the aforesaid reasons, this petition along with CM being B devoid of merit are dismissed.