AYESHA A. MALIK, J.----Through this ICA, the Appellant has impugned order dated 16.5.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge. in W.P. No. 16261/2016.
2. The facts of the case are that the Appellant is the owner of land measuring 95 Kanals 14 Marlas situated in Chak No.187/EB, District Vehari Under 'Lambardari Grant'. The grant was confirmed pursuant to an order dated 5.6.2014 passed in W.P. No.1055/2014 and thereafter through order dated 21.10.2015 passed by Respondent No.1, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab. The matter in issue with respect to the proprietary rights of the Appellant therefore came to an end and the Respondents if aggrieved should have challenged the order of the Board of Revenue dated 21.10.2015. Instead of challenging the said order, the Respondents issued show-cause notice dated 2.5.2016 raising the same allegations which had already been adjudicated upon in the order of the Member Board of Revenue. Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the matter has been adjudicated upon by the proper forum and the Respondents cannot revive a matter again through a show-cause notice. Further argued that the impugned order finds that the Appellant has challenged a show-cause notice and since no final order has been passed in the show-cause notice, the Appellant can appear before the competent authority and raise its objections. Explains that the show-cause notice is patently illegal and the Respondents cannot be allowed to re-open a case which has already been adjudicated upon in finality. Furthermore by requiring the Appellant to appear before the Respondents and submit its objections against the show-cause notice in fact means that the Respondents will re-open the case and will have to decide whether or not they accept the arguments of the Appellant. Learned counsel argued that this will mean that whenever the matters are adjudicated upon by the competent jurisdiction in government department they can re-open the matter by simply issuing show-cause notice without any regard to the orders of the Court which would be inherently wrong.
3. On behalf of the Respondents, learned Law Officer argued in support of the impugned order. He stated that show-cause notice was issued as there is no record available with respect to the application filed by the father of the Appellant on the basis of which the Respondents anticipate a fraudulent transaction He argued that at this stage no adverse order has been passed against the Appellant. The Appellant should file his reply and any objection that he may have can be decided by the Respondents in the first instance before taking up the case on its merits. Learned Law Officer further stated That it is just a notice and no substantive right of the Appellant is prejudiced
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find that the impugned order has failed to consider the fact that the issue with respect to proprietary rights of the Appellant has already been adjudicated upon by this Court vide order dated 5.6.2014 passed in W.P. No.1055/2014, on the basis of which the matter was remanded to Respondent No. 1. Respondent No.1 on the basis of direction given, heard all the parties and passed an exhaustive order dated 21.10.2015. In terms of the order, it is an admitted fact that an application for grant of proprietary rights was filed by the father of the Appellant well within time on 27.8.1976. It was also admitted in that order that the Appellant has stepped into the shoes of his father and was entitled to the grant of proprietary rights. We note that the findings of Respondent No.1 have created substantive rights in favour of the Appellant on the basis of an application moved by his father within the prescribed time The Respondents have now re-opened the matter requiring the Appellant to once again prove that an application was moved by his father. This is neither permissible under the law nor the Appellant can be forced to face such proceedings given that the competent forum has conclusively held in favour of the Appellant that he is entitled to proprietary rights on the basis of the application moved by his father. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order while recognizing that Respondent No.1 has declared that the Appellant has proprietary rights with reference to the land in question, has required the Appellant to defend himself before the Respondents on account of the fact that it is merely a show-cause notice. We are of the opinion that requiring the Appellant to defend himself before Respondent No.1 tantamounts to re-opening the case. The Respondents have had ample opportunity to deal with this issue and prove it to the contrary before Respondent No.l. Having failed to do so, they cannot issue a fresh show-cause notice on matters which are adjudicated upon in finality by the competent forum. This would amount to a travesty of law giving the Respondents the ability to re-open matters which have been adjudicated upon in finality.
5. Under the circumstances, the instant appeal is accepted and the impugned order dated 16.5.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.16261/2016 is set aside.