' SHAHID WAHEED, J.---This order shall govern this petition as well as those cases which have been mentioned in Schedule-A hereto as in all the said cases questions of law, referred to this Full Bench, are involved.
2. Prayer in this petition is that the respondent, Dr. Nazir Saeed, Member (Judicial-V)/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Punjab be called upon to show cause under what authority of law he is holding the office of Chief Settlement Commissioner and exercising power in that capacity; and, thereafter declaration be issued that the said respondent is neither competent nor has authority to hold office of Chief Settlement Commissioner and be restrained from holding that office.
3. Preceded by the above noted prayer the petitioner has maintained in this petition that to provide for the pernianent settlement of displaced persons on land in order to compensate them for the losses suffered by them on account of expropriation by the Government of India of their rights in property in India, or any area occupied by India and for matters incidental thereto or connected therewith two laws were promulgated: firstly, the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (XXVIII of 1958); and, secondly; the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement)
Act, 1958 (XLVII of 1958); that for the management of the rehabilitation work four tier system was introduced which according to section 2(6) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Addl. Settlement Commissioner and Chief Settlement Commissioner and also other officers appointed under any other law for the time being in force relating to the settlement of displaced persons on land; that for the disposal of settlement and rehabilitation work, the matter was to be decided by lower authority, and thereafter, appeal, revision, review were provided in Chapter-VI of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958; that the afore-stated laws were repealed in the year 1974 by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 and residual work was transferred to the Board of Revenue according to section 4 of the Repeal Act; that however, according to provisions of section 2(2) of the aforesaid Act the pending proceedings were transferred for final disposal to such an officer to be notified by the Provincial Government in the official Gazette; that the cases which were pending before the authorities or remanded by the Supreme Court or a High Court after such repeal were to be decided by the officer notified as aforesaid; that the office of Chief Settlement Commissioner or other Settlement Commissioners, i,e.
Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Additional Settlement Commissioner or Assistant Settlement Commissioner ceased to exist and no person thereafter could claim either as Settlement Commissioner or Chief Settlement Commissioner; that the Government of Punjab was required to notify such officers in the official Gazette to decide the pending cases or cases remanded by the Supreme Court or a High Court but had no authority at all to initiate new proceedings or to deal with the matters already settled under the settlement laws or to reopen the cases; that the respondent styled himself as Chief Settlement Commissioner and passed order and exercised jurisdiction as Chief Settlement Commissioner which power did not vest in him; and, that as there is no provision in the Repeal Act for appointment of Chief Settlement Commissioner so the claim of the respondent to be Chief Settlement 'Commissioner without any posting is without lawful authority.
4. This petition came up for peremptory hearing before the learned Single Bench of this Court on 11.06.2009. On the said date the matter, with the following observations, was referred to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench:- "The petitioner lays information that thg respondent has no lawful authority to claim himself to be the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab and to hold the said office. Learned counsel explains with reference to Section 2 of Evacuee Properties Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 that all the offices and authorities created under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 as also Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 ceased to exist upon promulgation of the said Act which took effect w,e,f. From 17.7.1974. Precise contention is that said office does not exist at all and there is no question of appointment of the respondent to the said post. Also refers to the case of Pakistan Tobacco Board, and another v. Tahir Raza and others (2007 SCMR 97) to urge that the writ petition is competent. Notice be issued to the respondent calling upon him to explain as to under what lawful authority is he claiming himself to be the Chief Settlement Commissioner and purporting to perform as, such, within three weeks.
2. I have express myself on this question in some judgments. Even otherwise, in view of the importance of the question as the respondent is purportedly acting as Chief Settlement Commissioner vis-a-vis the entire province, office to put up this file before the Hon'ble Chief Justice to consider the constitution of a larger Bench for hearing this case."
5. Pursuant to said order the Hon'ble Chief Justice constituted a Full Bench. Subsequently, the cases mentioned in Schedule-`A' hereto were clubbed with this petition. It is pertinent to mention here that in the said order the questions, to be determined by the Full Bench, were not framed. This omission required us to frame the questions so as to determine the precincts of this Full Bench. In the sequel, following questions with concurrence of the learned counsel for the parties were framed vide order dated 05.11.2015 (this order is available in the file of connected petition i,e. W.P.
No,45/R/2009):-- i) Whether the Provincial Government in exercise of powers conferred upon it under subsection (2) of Section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 has notified an offcer for disposal of pending proceedings? ii) Whether the Notification issued by the Provincial Government for the disposal of cases qua the evacuee property, if any, is valid?
' After framing the afore-noted questions we invited the learned counsel to address their arguments.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that in the old settlement laws there was provision of appeal and revision, as such, the hierarchy of settlement authorities was created; that after repeal of the aforesaid law by virtue of Act No,XIV of 1975 there is no such provision and all the powers have been given to the Notified Officer duly notified by the Provincial Government and there is no provision in the Repeal Act for the post of Chief Settlement Commissioner, as such, the respondent is non-entity and cannot claim the aforesaid office on the basis of any notification.
Reliance is placed on cases of Province of Punjab through Member Board of Revenue (Residual Properties) Lahore and others v. Muhammad Hussain through Legal Heirs and others (PLD 1993 SC 147), Sagheer Muhammad Khan and 5 others v. Member Judicial (V) Board of Revenue, Punjab and 4 others (2009 YLR 1255) and Dr. Muhammad Iqbal and 9 others v. Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and another (PLD 2010 Lahore 249). It is further contended that no rule or policy could be framed against the provisions of the Act. According to section 2(2) of the Repeal Act all pending proceedings before various authorities stood transferred for final disposal to such officer who was notified by the Provincial Government. The decision of the Notified Officer is not amenable to an appeal or revision, therefore, framing of scheme known as Scheme for Management and Disposal of available Urban Properties providing, Deputy Administrator and the Administrator and the provision of revision and other thing are against the Act. Even on this score the respondent cannot act either as Chief Settlement Commissioner or in any other capacity because the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 do not allow him to work in that capacity.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent have vehemently refuted the afore- noted arguments and submitted that Government of the Punjab in exercise of power conferred upon it under subsection (2) of section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 appointed the respondent as Notified Officer vide Notification No, 1996- 2008/564-Admn (I) dated 24.04.2008; that the said notification is free from any flaw and, therefore, the respondent validly decided the cases qua the .Evacuee property and grievances of the displaced persons; and, that designation of Chief Settlement Commissioner/Rehabilitation Commissioner/ Claims Commissioner of the said Office does not affect the legality of the said notification.
8. Heard. The questions under discussions are interlinked and, therefore, the same are taken up together. It is an admitted fact that the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 (III of 1956); The Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956 (XLII of 1956); The Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 (XII of 1957); The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (XXVIII of 1958); The Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 (XLVII of 1958); The Scrutiny of Claims (Evacuee Property), Regulations, 1961; and, The Price of Evacuee Property and Public Dues (Recovery) Regulations, 1971 stood repealed by virtue of section 2(1) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. Upon the repeal of the aforesaid Acts and Regulations, all proceedings which, immediately before such repeal, were pending before the authorities appointed thereunder transferred for final disposal to such officers as 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 were also stood remanded to the officers notified as aforesaid. Any proceedings transferred or remanded to the said officer were required to be disposed of by the said officer in accordance with the provisions of repealed Act or Regulation to which proceedings related##TR##. It means that upon repeal of the afore-stated laws relating to evacuee property and displaced persons the Provincial Government had to notify any officer in the official Gazette to decide or dispose of those cases about which a reference has been made in subsection (2) of section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The said provision of law reads 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 thereunder shall stand transferred for final disposal of 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."
' The afore-cited provision of law contemplates twofold conditions for the valid appointment of an officer to decide the pending or remanded cases. Firstly, the said officer should be notified by the Provincial government; and, secondly, the said notification should be made in the official Gazette.
In order to satisfy ourselves, we asked the learned counsel for the respondents to produce copy of the notification regarding the appointment of the respondent. In compliance with the said order the learned counsel for the respondent produced before us Notification No,1996-2008/564-Admn
(I) dated 24.04.2008. The said notification was published on 10.09.2008 in the Punjab Weekly Gazette and the same reads as under:-- "No,1996-2008/564-Admn(1)---In exercise of the powers conferred upon him under Subsection (2) of section 2 of the evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Law (Repeal) Act, 1975 (Federal Act XIV of 1975) the Governor of the Punjab, is pleased to notify Dr. Nazir Saeed, Member (Judicial-V), Board of Revenue, Punjab, as the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation Commissioner and Claims Commissioner for the province of Punjab, with immediate effect for the purposes mentioned in Subsection (2) of section 2 ibid."<.i> ' Perusal of the said notification unfolds that the same was issued by the Governor of the Punjab in exercise of powers conferred upon him under subsection (2) of section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975; and, that Dr. Nazir Saeed, Member (Judicial-V), Board of Revenue, Punjab was notified as Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation Commissioner and Claims Commissioner for the Province of Punjab for the purposes mentioned in subsection (2) of section 2 of the said Act. Since the said notification was published in the Gazette, we have no hesitation in holding that Dr. Nazir Saeed, Member (Judicial-V), Board of Revenue, Punjab was the officer who was lawfully notified to decide/dispose of pending or remanded cases relating to displaced persons and evacuee property as contemplated in subsection (2) of section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons (Repeal) Act, 1975. In the said notification appellation of the respondent as Chief Settlement Commissioner, Rehabilitation Commissioner, and Claims Commissioner, does not mean that the offices created under the repealed Act and Regulations were resurrected. The said appellation neither confers additional powers nor alters the status of the Notified Officer. It is made clear that notwithstanding the said appellation/designation the status of the respondent remained as Notified Officer. Thus, mentioning of any appellation does not affect the validity of the said notification. In this regard we stand fortified from the order dated 02.01.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.P.
No,709-L-2009. Upshot of the above discussion is that answer to the questions, under discussion, are in the affirmative.
9. Since the questions referred to this Full Bench have been answered, office is directed to fix this case and all the cases mentioned in Schedule-' A' hereto before appropriate Benches of this Court for decision of individual, factual and legal merits.