1. This petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question orders, dated 28th December, 1971, 27th September, 1972, and 13th March, 1973, passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot and dated 20th April, 1976, passed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a house bearing No. 1045, situate in Kot Daska, District Sialkot, was transferred to one Allah Rakha, son of Jhandu by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot, by his order, dated 11th October, 1960. A P. T. O. And appendix were also issued to him. The transfer price shown in the appendix was Rs.336. Allah Rakha aforementioned entered into an agreement-of-association with Bashir Ahmad the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners who was a claimant displaced person. This agreement-of-association is dated 26th October, 1964. It was allowed on 29th October, 1964, after recording the statements of the parties. In consequence of the acceptance of this agreement-of-association an amended P. T. O. Was issued to Bashir Ahmad aforementioned.
2. On the death of Bashir Ahmad, his legal heirs who are petitioners Nos. I to 8 and respondent No. 4 Muhammad Hanif, were brought on record by an order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot dated 30th June, 1966.
3. When arguments were beard on 17th November, 1979, the learned counsel for the petitioners asserted that the total price of the property was Rs.336 and was so mentioned in Appendix XI whereas the learned counsel for the contesting respondent asserted that the price was Rs.2,520 and that the balance of Rs.2,184 remained payable after adjust--ment of Rs.336. In this view of the matter the original record was called for which has since been received. It has been perused and I find that in Appendix XI appearing at page 23 of the file (at page 24) the sum of Rs.336 has been scored of and instead R-s. 2,520 has been written.
4. There is yet another copy of Appendix appearing at page 29/35 in which the total price payable shown at page 29 is Rs.336 but at page 35 the balance price payable is shown as Rs.2,184. There are no initials either on the figures scored out and re-written. Be that as it may, after the legal representatives of Bashir Ahmad aforementioned had been brought on record as successors of the transferee the Deputy Settlement Commis--sioner appears to have issued a notice for payment of Rs.1,908 addressed to Muhammad Hanif etc. Copy of this notice appears at page 79 of the original file.
5. It is admitted position that this notice was not sent by registered post. The reverse of it bears the thumb-impression purporting to be of Muhammad Hanif acknowledging the receipt of the notice.
6. It is also the admitted position that notice was not served on the petitioner in any manner.
7. On 28th December, 1971, in pursuance of this notice, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot passed an order canceling the property from the name of the petitioners. The file also shows that another notice appearing: at page 83 was issued. There is no acknowledgment of this notice available anywhere on the file. The property was then included in the auction list and intimation of this auction was purportedly given through another notice issued by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 12th September, 1972, a copy of which appears at page 85. It bears an endorsement in the following words :- There is, however, no indication as to how this notice was served as the copy does not bear the signature of any person. A certified copy of this notice has been filed by the respondent as Annexure R/~ in which it is shown as having been signed by Abdul Rashid but the original, as pointed out above, does not bear his signature. The property was auctioned on 27th September, 1972, and purchased by respondent No. 3 for Rs.2,420 to whom a P. T. D. Was issued on 31st October, 1972.
8. The petitioners on learning of this position filed an application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot which was disposed of by him, by his order, dated 13th March, 1973, stating that since the property had already been auctioned and P. T. D. Issued no action could be taken and that the applicant may seek judicial remedy wherever it lay. This order was passed in the absence of the petitioners and it was directed that they be informed of the order. There is nothing on record to show that this order was communicated to the petitioners. They, however, filed an appeal against this order which in view of change in law was treated as a revision and dismissed by the learned Settlement and Rehabilitation Com--missioner, by his order dated 20th April, 1976.
9. Hence this writ petition.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended firstly, that the petitioner were never served with any notice calling upon them to pay the alleged balance price as provided by Settlement Scheme No. VIII; secondly, that the notice allegedly received in the name of Muhammad Hanif respondent, a legal heir of Bashir Ahmad the predecessor---in-interest of the petitioners, also was not a valid notice as it was not sent by registered post acknowledgment due which is the mode prescribed for service of such a notice under Settlement Scheme No. VIII; thirdly, that the order dated 28th December. 1971 (Annexure F) passed by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot canceling transfer of the property in dispute shows the lack of application of mind of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in that he treated Muhammad Hanif, one of the legal heirs of the associate transferee as the only transferee and as such the order is not sustain--able in law; fourthly, that notice purportedly received by one of the petitioners Rashid Ahmad who is shown as Abdul Rashid in the notice was never received by him as has been found from page 85 of the original file as well; and lastly, that there was no justification for cancellation of the transfer from the name of the petitioners and resumption thereof as the petitioners had paid the full price of Rs.336 as reflected in the Appendix and that even if it be assumed that the price was Rs.2,520 the property could not. Be resumed except by observing the procedure prescribed therefore which has been shown to have not been adopted.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 3 submitted that notice was issued to Muhammad Hanif etc. And as he was acting on behalf of the legal heirs and notice was received by him the requirement of notice stood complied with. He further contended that notice was again issued which was received by one of the petitioners and as such it could not be said that the petitioners had no knowledge about the proceedings taken by the Settlement Department for resumption of the property.
12. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 3 was that the Settlement Officers being not civil Courts should be given due allowance for having not complied with the requirement of issuing notice to all the concerned legal representatives of the deceased transferee as they were not judicial officers of experience and as such not expected to know the intricacies of law. Elaborating his contention he submitted that the despatch of notice to one of the legal heirs should be taken as notice to all of them.
13. The last contention of the learned counsel for the contesting respon--dent No. 3 was that the respondent is a bona fide purchaser for value in an open auction and as such the transfer effected in his favour should not be interfered with.
14. PLD 1964 SC 536) and Government of West Pakistan through Collector, Gujranwala v. Land Acquisition Collec--tor, District Gujranwala, etc. (PLD 1979 Lah. 54).
15. He further submitted that the original order being violative of law is void and hence the subsequent orders passed by the Settlement hierarchy, including the transfer in favour of respondent No. 3, is of no consequence and has to fall alongwith the void order itself. Reliance in this regard was placed on Yusaf Ali v. Muhommad Aslam Zia and two others (PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 104).
16. Having given consideration to the controversy involved I find that the basic and fundamental point requiring consideration is the validity or otherwise of the notice and consequent proceedings for cancellation of the transfer of property and resumption thereof from the name o the petitioners. It is the admitted position that no notice by registered post acknowledgment due was sent to any of the legal heirs of the deceased transferee Bashir Ahmad. Now, para. 2 of Settlement Scheme No. VIII framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Re--habilitation) Act, 1958 reads as under :--- "The Additional Settlement Commissioner (Industries) or the Deputy Settlement Commissioner concerned as the case may be will serve a demand notice upon a transferee of a property who has failed to pay two consecutive instalments or if no instalments had been allowed to him has defaulted in payment of transfer price due from him, requiring him to pay the whole of the outstanding amount. Demand notice will be issued by registered post acknowledgment due and the acknowledgment receipt when received back from the addressee, will be pasted on the file of the demand notice, Where necessary, substituted service of demand notice, as provided for in the Code of Civil Procedure, may be made,"
17. A perusal of the above provision shows the importance of the demand notice. The requirements are that it has to be sent by registered post acknowledgment due, that the acknowledgment due receipt has to be pasted on the file of the demand notice when received back and in caste substituted service is required it shall be effected in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. None of the above requirements have been complied with in that neither a registered acknowledgment due notice was sent nor the acknowledgment due receipt pasted on the file nor the substituted service effected as provided for in the Code o.` Civil Procedure. The mere alleged sending of notice and receipt thereof by one of the transferees cannot in the above view of the provision of law be sustained as a validly issued and served notice. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners squarely apply to the facts of this case and it has of necessity to be held that no valid and legal notice was served on the transferee of the property, which in the present circumstances are the petitioners being the duly appointed legal representatives of the deceased transferee. As held in PLD 1979 Lahore 54 the alleged notice served on respondent No. 4 has to be treated as non est.
18. Yet another aspect of the matter is that the case has been dealt with in the Settlement hierarchy in an absolutely slipshod manner without adverting to the record which is apparent from the fact that whilst in one document the total price payable and paid is shown as Rs.336, in others it is shown as Rs.2,520, leaving a balance of Rs.2,134 after adjustment of the sum of Rs.336 from the compensation book whereas the notice of demand allegedly issued and received by respondent No. 4 shows the amount recoverable as Rs.1,980 without any explana--tion as to how this amount has been arrived at.
19. Having found the notice to be not valid it is to follow that the order dated 28th December, 1971, which is based on an illegal notice cannot be sustained and has to be held as void. The subsequent orders passed also will be of no consequence having been based on a void order on the principle laid down in PLD 1958 SC 104 referred to above.
20. Before parting with the case it would be appropriate to observe that the contentions raised on behalf of the contesting respondent apparently have no force.
21. The other contention that the Settlement Officers being not judicial officers are not supposed to be conversant with the law and its technicalities can obviously be given no weight as they being functionaries under a statute are required to know how to implement the same. Not only the provisions of para. 2 of Settlement Scheme No. VIII specifically lay down the procedure required to be adopted for cancellation of transfers and resumption of property but section 23 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 also provides that while performing their functions the officers appointed under the Act shall act as Civil Courts for the purposes mentioned therein which inter alia, includes adding the legal. Representatives substituting the names of claimants etc., and, thus, expected to be conversant with all technicalities. In case they do not comply with the provisions the showing of indulgence to them on the score on which it has been urged on behalf of the respondent, would amount to giving premium to neglects and thus perpetuate wrongs which can never be the intention of law nor can be allowed by this Court.
22. The only other contention raised on behalf of the respondent as to his being a bona fide purchaser and transferee and that P. T. D. Issued to him cannot be interfered with stands squarely answered by Khuda Bakhsh v. Khushi Muhammad and others (PLD 1976 SC 208) and Hafizan Begum etc, v.
23. Deputy Settlement Commissioner etc. (PLD 1974 Note 17 at p. 51):