' Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the house No, 1506, in Ward `B' Larkana was purchased by father of the petitioner from Settlement Department in an open auction. The auction purchaser paid I/4th of the total consideration of Rs, 11,000 at the time of the auction and the balance' was paid by him from the compensation book of Mst. Basheeran Khanam in pursuance of the agreement between her and the auction purchaser. After verification of the compensation book by the concerned Accounts Officers as being genuine and correct the account was adjusted and consequently P. T. D. Dated 18-1-1965 was issued in favour of the petitioner's father, Moulvi Nazir Hussain and possession of the house was delivered to him.
2. However, after a few years the transferee received a notice from Additional Settlement Commissioner, Sukkur, requiring him to pay up a sum of Rs, 8,250 as the compensation book from which the amount was got deducted was found defective. On receipt or such notice the transferee approached the said officer to cancel the notice. As no relief was granted to him he preferred appeal before Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner who by his order dated 21-11-1968 directed the Deputy Commissioner to look into the matter and ascertain the correct position. The Deputy Commissioner, however by letter dated 4-2-1969 repeated the demand without making any proper enquiry.
3. Finding no other alternative the transferee filed a civil suit. However, during pendency of the suit he died and the present petitioner who is his son was substituted as his sole legal heir. The suit was dismissed on the ground that jurisdiction of civil Court is barred. Appeal taken to the District Court against the order of the Civil Judge also met the same fate. This revision petition is directed against the said orders passed by the two Courts below.
4. When the case was called for hearing none appeared on behalf of the respondents. Mr. Ruknuddin Qasmi who represented the petitioner was however heard in support of the petition.
With his assistance I also went through the record.
5. As provided in section 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, Civil Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any matter which is decided by the Central Government or an officer appointed and empowered under the said Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that even if the jurisdiction of civil Court is barred by a statute, it will still retain the power to examine the acts or orders of Special Tribunal to see if such acts or orders are in accordance with law, or are illegal or even mala fide. In this connection the learned counsel has referred to Hamid Hussain v. Government of West Pakistan and others Ghazi Khan v.
Republic of Pakistan Mir Muhammad Latif v. Province of West Pakistan. In the first case it was held :- "It is a well-established principle that even where the jurisdiction of civil Courts is barred and conferred upon Special Tribunal, Civil Courts being Courts of ultimate jurisdiction will have jurisdiction to examine the acts of such forums to see whether their acts are in accordance with law or are illegal or even mala fide."
6. In the case of Ghazi Khan the view taken was that if the order made was without jurisdiction or it was made capriciously or in flagrant breach of statute, it would not be protected by section 25 of the aforesaid Act and Civil Court would be competent to pronounce such order as invalid.
7. In the third case of Muhammad Latif the Supreme Court was pleased to observe :- "There is no doubt that under it ordinarily a party in revenue matters should exhaust all his remedies by way of appeal before invoking the aid of the civil Court. But there are different considerations where the allegation of a party is that the impugned order is nullity in the eye of law.
There is ample authority that in such cases jurisdiction of the civil Court is not barred."
8. In the above reported case the Privy Council authority reported as Secretary of State v. Mask & Co. was taken note of. The observations made in that case were as follows :- "It is also well-settled that even if jurisdiction is so excluded, the Civil Courts have jurisdictions to examine into cases where the provisions of the Act have not been complied with or the Statutory Tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure."
9. In view of above authorities it is quite clear that even if the jurisdiction of civil Courts is ousted, they can still intervene and exercise their jurisdiction in order to examine if acts and orders of the Special Tribunal A are within the four corners of the law within which they are required to act and whether, they have not acted illegally or mala fide or they have complied with the provisions of the law of which the Tribunal themselves are creations.
10. In the instant case the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned notice is void having been issued in violation of the law. The learned counsel submitted that after due verification of the compensation book by the concerned official agency the P. T. D. Was issued.
According to him once the P. T, D. Was issued, there was no power vested in any Settlement authority to cancel the same. He contended that since by the impugned notice the P. T. D. Has been ordered to be treated as cancelled in the event of default in payment of the amount specified in the notice, the said notice has been issued in utter disregard of jurisdiction and consequently it is unlawful being without jurisdiction.
11. The impugned notice that has been issued by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner is reproduced as under :- "With reference to your appeal No, SCHK-7/67/67 filed before the Settlement Commissioner, Karachi has been decided on 21-11-1968. You are hereby accordingly informed that the1 2 3 4 compensation book cited above as subject has been found to be bogus. You were, therefore, required to pay Rs, 8,250 in cash vide this office letter referred to above. The payment of the entire amount may be made within a period of FIFTEEN days from the date of receipt of this notice as a considerable time has elapsed, failing which the transfer of the said property will be treated as cancelled without further notice."
12. On perusal of the notice it is clear that on expiry of the period specified therein, the P. T. D.
Automatically stood cancelled. Therefore, it is not correct to think that by the notice, only the transferee was called upon to clear the amount of balance outstanding against him and the P. T. D.
Has been left un-disturbed. The argument to this effect is clearly erroneous and is not borne out from the language of the notice. It appears that after verification of the compensation book on the basis of which the P. T. D. Was issued, the said book was held as bogus without notice to the petitioner and behind his back.
13. By issuance of the P. T. D. In favour of the petitioner, the latte acquired a vested right in the property shown in the P. T. D. The said right could not be snatched from him without affording him an opportunity of hearing. It is an admitted position that no notice was given to the petitioner nor he was heard before the issuance of the impugned notice by which the P. T. D. Stood cancelled.
Obviously the procedure followed in this case was not in conformity with the legal requirements.
Consequently the impugned notice cannot be held to be valid.
14. In this connection my attention has been invited to Muhammad Siddique v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, wherein the Supreme Court held :- "It is plain that before the impugned order was passed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, the second and third appellants who had been associated with the first appellant with the requisite permission of the Settlement authorities themselves had acquired vested right in the property in question and had been issued a P. T. D. In their favour, jointly with the first appellant.
Without giving them any notice or an opportunity to be heard, the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner could not have interfered with their property rights. In so far as he did so, he controverted the principles of natural justice and this circumstance alone would invalidate the impugned order."
15. Reliance has also been made on Atta Muhammad v. The Settlement Commissioner. It was observed : "Bearing these principles in mind, I have reached the conclusion that sub-clause (5) of section 20 of the Act is mandatory in character and places a limitation on the jurisdiction of the revising authority not to make any adverse order against a person without giving him opportunity to show cause against it. If such an order is made without fulfilment of this pre-requisite, it would cretainly lack jurisdiction."
16. These two cases were followed in the case of Ghazi Khan referred to above in which the view taken was that once the property was transferred under any Settlement Scheme, it could not be resumed without show-cause notice even if compensation book was later found not to be genuine.
17. To reinforce his arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner also made reference to Aminuddin v. Settlement Commissioner and others It was held :- " .We are of the opinion that after the repeal of Rules 6 and 7 (Permanent Transfer Rules) there was no power left in the Settlement Authorities to correct even the clerical mistakes in the P. T. D. This is now well-settled and, therefore, we can find no ground upon which any just exception can be taken to the conclusion arrived at by the High Court."
18. Two authorities namely Tufail Muhammad v. Muhammad Ziaullah Khan and Anwar Hussain Sahni v. Sarfraz Ahmed were noted in the case of Aminuddin to support the view that the Settlement Authorities retained no jurisdiction over evacuee properties after issuance of P. T. D.5 6 7 8 9
19. From the above authorities the rule that emerges is that once the P. T. D. Was issued authenticating there by the transfer of the property, it would be regarded as final so far settlement authorities are concerned. No power is vested in these authorities to re-open the P. T. D. On any excuse. They are not permitted even to rectify the clerical errors in the said document. Thus, in the instant case after issuance of the P. T. D. Which was admittedly issued after due verification of the compensation book by appropriate officer, the case allowed finality and the P. T. D. Could not be cancelled on any ground including the ground that the compensation book was subsequently found to be bogus.
20. By the impugned notice, the petitioner was not only called upon to pay up the balance of the consideration because the compensation book had been declared as bogus but he was also informed that in the event of his default in making the payment within the time specified in the.
Notice, the P. T. D. Would be treated to have been cancelled. Obviously the notice had he effect of cancelling of the P. T. D. As pointed out above, the petitioner as not afforded opportunity of showing cause before declaring the compenation book on which he was issued P. T. D. As bogus.. Thus, that act of declaring the compensation book as bogus without notice to the petitioner s well as that of cancelling the P. T. D. In default of payment of the balance were without jurisdiction and void.
Accordingly the two Courts below have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them and consequently their judgments impugned in the revision petition cannot be sustained.
21. In view of above discussions the revision petition is allowed and he judgments of the lower Courts are set aside. It is held that the Settlement authorities possessed no power to cancel the P. T.
D. Since the notice dated -2-1969 issued by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had the effect of cancelling the P. T. D. It was without jurisdiction and hence void. 1974 SCM R 356 PLD 1973 Kar. 624 PLD 1970 SC 180 AIR 1940 P C 105 PLD 1965 SC 123 PLD 1971 SC 61 1973 SCMR 624 PLD 1965 SC 269 PLD 1972 SC 669