Precisely , the facts as emerged from the memorandum of petition are as such that property No. F-2572 situated Inside Kashmiri Gate, Lahore being Evac uee Properly was allotted/transferred through Transfer Order No. 17481 dated 05.11.1974 by the Deputy Commissioner (Settlement), Lahore on 06.01.1974 to one Rana Muhammad Ashfaq son of Muhammad Ishaque. Its first sale was made through sale deed dated 20.03.1979 and finally it is now in the ownership and possession of the present petitioner through registered sale (Annexure-B/1). The said Transfer Order No. 17481 dated 05.11.1974 was verified on the application of one Muhammad Bashir through minutes of meeting dated 30.08.2016 under Letter No. 372/2015/1787/OIR by the Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing/Provincial Verification Committee (PVC) Farid Kot House, Lahore) and through Letter No. 1965/18/1274/OIR dated 19.10.2018 was submitted to ADCR, Lahore. The petitioner being owner in possession of the said property applied for approval of constructions of building plan to Walled City Lahore which was approved through Letter No. 101403 dated 30.07. 2018 and the petitioner was making his construction as per approved building plan when firstly Respondent No. 2 and others tried to interfere into constructions of the petitioner , therefore, he instituted a suit and construction making order dated 01.12.2018 was issued by the learned Civil Judge seized of the matter , the position remained the same in appeal and writ petition Bearing No. 87/2019 filed by the Respondents No. 2 to 4 was dismissed on 02.04.2019 by this Court, too.
On Human Rights Application of one Mst. Humaira daughter of Respondent No. 2/Safia Qayyum before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the properties were sealed by order dated 12.01.2019 subject to decision of civil Court and verification of the ownership/entitlement documents. Finally , the property of the petitioner was de-sealed after due verification by the Civil Court vide order dated 17.05.2019 and the petitioner was making construction thereon. Inspite of having knowledge of the above said order , the Respondent No. 1/Chief Settlement Commissioner has initiated proceedings on application of Respondents Nos. 2 to 4, kllegedly in violation of law as well as dictum laid down in Dr. Ahmad Iqbal and 9 others v. Member Board of Revenue Chief Settlement Commissioner etc. (PLD 2010 Lahore 249 ). Hence the instant constitutional petition.
2. It has been argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Khan Muhammad got land measuring 1-kanal. 19 marlas, 176 sq.ft. through agreement for sale dated 20.03.1952 of damaged scheme but no property number was mentioned therein; even the terms of agreement were not fulfilled. Adds that above said land was not transferred in favour of Khan Muhammad through any lawful document. Maintains that husband of Mst. Safia Qayyum fraudulently created sale deed in her favour on the basis of agreement for sale dated 20.03.1952. FIR No. 188/2018 was lodged at Police Station Lower Mall by Sub-Registrar against Safia Qayyum, etc. and they were found guilty by police, who are facing trial. Moreover , show-cause notice dated 02.10.2018 by ADC(R), Lahore for fraudulent sale deed was issued to them. Alleges that Respondents No. 2 to 4 admitted property and allotment F- 2572 correct in partnership deed dated 10.07.2017 and same remained the situat ion in their bogus sale deed. As such, the Respondents No. 2 to 4 have no locus standi and no concern with the property owned by the petitioner .
The property of the petitioner is Evacuee Property whereas the claim property of Respondents No. 2 to 4 is of Damaged Scheme of LTI now LDA/Punja b Govt. meaning thereby these are two different properties with different locations, situations and status. Contends that Chief Settlement Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter in hand after cut-of f date i.e. 01.07.1974 and cancel the Transfer Order , because the matter of property of the petitioner was not pending at that time and after the time of promulgation of Evacuee and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 the Respondent No. 1 has become functus officio. Further contends that neither Settlement Department has litigated nor claimed nor challenged the allotment in favour of original allottee, through whom the petitioner derived his right. After observing all legal formalities the Settlement Department declared Transfer Order as correct with allotment; hence, the proceedi ngs before the Respondents No. 1 are without lawful authority , without jurisdiction, corum non judice, without backing of law and with mala fide intention. Therefore, by allowing the writ petition hand bearing No. 43553 of 2019, it may be declared that after verification report of Transfer Order in question by the Provincial Verification Committee dated 30.08.2016, the Respondent No. 1 has no powers to hear against this report of PVC being higher in rank and competent Committee; it may also be declared that after cut-of f date i.e. 01.07.1974 coming repeal of Evacuee Laws and Evacuee and Displaced Persons Law (Repeal) Act, 1975, the proceedings regard ing T.Os. PTOs and PVC report before the Respondent No. 1 are ultra vires to laws and case law; moreover , all the orders and proceedings before the Respondent No. 1, even restraining orders dated 03.07.2019 of Respondent No. 1 or any other restraining order may please be set aside. Relies on Ch. Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan, etc. v. The Custodian of Evacuee Property , West Pakistan and Karachi, etc. (PLD 1964 Supreme Court 865), Sher Afzal Khan and others v. Haji Razi Abdullah and others (1984 SCMR 228), Shamshad and others v. Mukammil Shah and others (1984 SCMR 912), Mst. Iqbal Siddiqui v. Assistant Settlem ent Commissioner (Urban) and others (PLD 1984 Lahore 291), Bilqis Begum and others v. Fazal Muhammad and others (1987 SCMR 1441 ), Khawaja Bashir Ahmad v.
The Additional Settlement Commission er, Rawalpindi and others (1991 SCMR 1604 ), Hafiz Noor Muhammad and others v. Ghulam Rasul and others (1999 SCMR 705), Syed Istijab Hassan and 4 others v. Member (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing), Board of Revenuell Chief Settlement Commissioner , Punjab, Lahore and 2 others (1999 YLR 1627 -Lahore), Jamal-ud-Din v. Member , Board of Revenue and 4 others (2001 CLC 81-Lahore), Government of Punjab, Colonies Department, Lahore and others v.. Muham mad Yaqoob (PLD 2002 Supreme Court 5), Pakistan Transport Company Ltd. v. Walayat Khan through Legal Heirs (2002 SCMR 1470 ), Sagheer Muhammad Khan and 5 others v. Member (Judicial) Board of Revenue, Punjab and 4 others (PLJ 2009 Lahore 682) and (2009 YLR 1255 -Lahore), Dr. Muhammad Iqbal and 9 others v. Member , Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner , Lahore and another (PLD 2010 Lahore 249) and Rubina Habib and others v . Province of Punjab and others (2019 CLC Note 36-Lahore).
3. As against above, by placing reliance on Shamir , through Legal Heirs v. Faiz Elahi, through Legal Heirs (1993 SCMR 145), Wali Muhammad v. Ellahi Bakhsh through LRs. and others (2005 SCMR 1526 ), Muhammad Sadiq (deed.) through L.Rs. and others v. Mushtaq and others (2011 SCMR 239), Bashir Ahmad Khan v. Pakistan (PLD 1997 Lahore 423), Abdur Rahman Bhatti and another v. Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another (2006 CLC 543-Lahore), the learned counsel for the Respondents No. 2 to 4 has argued that the writ petition in hand is not maintainable because the same is against an interim order passed by the Respondent No. 1. Adds that the matter pending before the Chief Settlement Commissioner is being heard in compliance with the directions of this Court passed vide order dated 26.11.2018 whereby W.P. No. 251525/2018 was disposed of with the directions to the MBR/SCS for deciding the pending matter within 30 days, hence, the MBR/CSC is under obligation to hear and decide the matter; that the petitioner challenged the above said order dated 26.11.2018 by filing petition under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2018 again directing the present petitioner to participate in the proceedings pending before the MBR/CSC; that the petitioner being dissatisfied with the said order filed Intra Court Appeal No. 256558 of 2018, which was dismissed on 17.12.2018; that all the above said orders and proceedings have been concealed by the petitioner , thus, the writ petition is liable to be cancelled on this score only; that the verification committee verified the genuineness of Transfer Order when the ADC Lahore was not present in meeting, but someone else singed for ADC Lahore in attendance sheet, thus, the committee was incomplete, therefore, the forged and fabricated document cannot be verified and termed as genuine document; that the MBR/CSC is fully competent to check the record of alleged TO/PT O and to, hold whether the documents are genuine or not as has been provided under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons (Repeal Laws) Act, 1975, therefore, no restraining order could be passed to strangulate the judicial proceedings of MBR/CSC; that under Section 2(3) of the Act, 1975 ibid the MBR/CSC is compe tent to proceed further according to the provisions or repeal laws related to the proceedings. Adds that under Section 23 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act XXVIII of 1958, the Chief Settlement Commissioner (CSC) is fully competent to proceed as Civil Court and the MBR/CSC is also competent to proceed as a public servant and also as a crimina l Court under Sections 21, 196, 199, 200 and is empowered to proceed under Sections 193 & 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
Contends that jurisdiction of Civil Court is specifically barred under Section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act XXVIII of 1958, therefore, the matter pending before the CSC neither could be withdrawn nor could be entrusted to any other officer, the writ petition is liable to be rejected on this score; that all the settlement laws have been repealed due to promulgation of the Evacuee Properties and Displaced Persons (Repealed Laws) Ordinance, 1974, after the target date i.e. 01.07.1974 only the notified officer was competent to issue TO/PT O, but the alleged Transfer Order has been issued by Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 06.11.1974, meaning thereby it is a forged and fabricated document; that under the provisions of the Act, 1958, no T.O. can be issue without verification of possession by the Settlement Department. The alleged document was issued on 06.11.1974 but the petitioner was put in possession on the basis of decree (through bailiff) dated 03.05.2017, thus, it proves that the said T.O. is a forged and fabricated document; that in compliance of order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Superintendent Police inquired at the spot and submitted report staling therein that the present petitioner or his vendor never remained in possession upon the property in question; that the respondents filed application under Section 12(2) of the CPC before the Civil Court, but the same was dismissed and appeal there-against is pending before the learne d Addl. District Judge; that the Respondent No. 2 purchased the land of Scheme No. 2 from LIT/ Lahore Improvement Trust through auction and his offer was accepted dated 16.01.1952 regarding purchase of land Plot Nos. 1 to 6 and portion-A and he paid the total price of the plots, the complete possession was handed over to him on 04.11.1963 through Land Acquisition Collector , so after payment of price, the Respondent No. 2 became full-fledged owner . As such, the writ petition in hand is not maintainable and same may be dismissed.
4. Heard.
5. Considering the arguments and going through the record, it is observed that a writ petition Bearing No. 251525 of 2018 titled "Safia Qayyum, etc. v. Member Board of Revenue, etc." was filed with the prayer that order of Secretary S&R dated 30.08.2016 be set aside by declaring that Settlement Department has no concern with the property of Lahore Improvement Trust; the said writ petition was disposed of on 12.12.2018 with the following observation:
3. Be that as it may, let a copy of this petition along with its annexures be transm itted to Respondent No. 1, who shall treat the same as representation on behalf of the petitioners. Needless to observe that he shall afford proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as to all concerned and then decid e the same, by way of speaking order , strictly in accordance with law, within thirty days from the date of receipt of instant order . The learned law officer shall convey the order of this Court to Respondent No. 1 for its compliance. Dispose of.'
The Respondent No. 1 in the said writ petition was Member Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner , Punjab, Lahore. The record further revea ls that the present petitioner filed a C.M. No. 03 of 2018 under Section 12(2) of the CPC against the said order , which was disposed of on 12.12.2018 with a direction to the Respondent No.4/Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore to associate the applicant in the said proceedings and then proceed accordingly in terms of order dated 26th November , 2018. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said order filed an Intra Court Appeal Bearing No. 256558/2018 but the same was dismissed.
The above picture shows that the matter has been taken up and order dated 03rd of July, 2019 has been passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member (Judicial-VIII), Board of Revenue, Punjab, in pursuance of the order dated 12.12.2018 passed by this Court. In Noor Muhammad, Lambardar v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore (2003 SCMR 708 ), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan invariably held: 'It is to be noted that interlocutory order is an order in which no final verdict is pronounced but an ancillary order is passed with the intention to keep it operative till final decision.'
The nature of impugned order in the present case is also that of interim and writ petition against the same is not maintainable as has been held in Mst. Fatima Zohra and another v. Salimuddin and others (1988 MLD 605- Lahore), relevant part of which reads: '4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are quite clear that against the interim order of the learned Settlement Commissioner dated 3-1-1978, whereby the appellants had been issued a notice on the application of the Respondent No. 1 for setting aside the ex parte order , no writ petition could be maintained. Whatever pleas the appellants may have in opposition to the application of the respondent, they can take the same before the Authority who is dealing with that application. The appeal is without merits and is accordingly dismissed with costs.'
Apart from above, in Amir Saleem v . Presiding Of ficer and others (PLD 2013 Lahore 607 ), this Court observed: 'In any case, the order is of interim in nature and as to the propriety of the impugned interim order or its correctness or otherwise in my humble view ought not to be entertained in Constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on Bolan Bank Limited v. Capricorn Enterprise (Pvt.) Ltd. 1998 SCMR 1961 , Muhammad Zubair and 4 others v.
Muhammad Zameer and 1 1 others (1999 CLC 2045 ) and Mst. Aysha Bibi v . District Judge 2005 CLC 894 .'
Merits of the case cannot be entertained and discussed in the instant petition, beca use the matter is sub judice, as has been stated above, pursuant to orders of this Court and in view of the ratio of above said judgments, the writ petition in hand is not maintainable; thus, no relief as prayed for can be granted to the petitioner , as the impugned order has been passed with jurisdiction.
6. In addition to the above, the petitioner has also taken recourse to the Civil Court by filing a suit titled "Faisal Afzal v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (Residual properties/Notified Officer, Punjab E (Member Judicial- VIII), Board of Revenue Lahore, etc." for declaration with consequential relief, so any findings at this stage, may prejudice case of tither of the party , pending before the competent Court of jurisdiction and it would amount to hamper the said proceedings.
7. So far as the case law submitted by both the sides, with due respect, the same has no relevance to the peculiar matter under discussion, because it relates to merits of the case, which is not subject matter of the present petition.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the petition in hand being not maintainable stands dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.