CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitione r has challenged the legality of order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, Government of Pakistan, Lahore who dismissed the petition under Section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 (Act XIII of 1975) regarding land measuring 05-Kanals and 16-Marlas comprising Khasra Nos.534 and 547 situated at Mouza Amer Sidhu, Tehsil and District, Lahore and also assailed the order dated 12.08.2020 passed by the Secretary Ministry of Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony , Islamabad/Revisional Authority who dismissed revision petition of the petitioner .
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Deputy Administrator filed reference before Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board with the prayer that Khasra No.535 measuring 05-Kanals and 05-Marlas and Khasra No.547 measuring 04- Kanals and 13-Marlas, total area measuring 09-Kanals and 18-Marlas be declared as evacuee trust property . The Chairman held inquiry and vide order dated 23.02.1999 declared the said land as an Evacuee Trust Property and also ordered to sell out the property to respondents Nos.5 and 6 namely Syed Hamid Ali Shah and Syed Shafqat Ullah Shah. The Revisional Authority in exercise of its suo motu jurisdiction under section 17 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 remanded the matter vide order dated 07.04.2001 to the Chairman for decision afresh. In post remand proceedings the Chairman after affording hearing to the concerned patties decided to sell out the property through an open auction as per law giving first right of refusal to Syed Hamid Ali Shah and Syed Shafqat Ullah Shah respondents Nos.5 and 6 vide order dated 12.05.2004. Thereafter , respondent No.7 (Messrs Precision Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.) filed revision petition before the Federal Secretary who dismissed the same vide order dated 06.01.2007. The respondent No.7 then filed Writ Petition No.5702/2007 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14.09.2007. Against the above concurrent decision, the respondent No.7 filed Civil Petition No.1574-L/2007 which was dismissed as withdrawn by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 16.06.2010.
Then in the second round of litigation, respondent No.7 (Messrs Precision Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.) filed petition under Section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 (Act XIII of 1975) before the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, Government of Pakistan, Lahore which was dismissed vide order dated 31.10.2019. Against the said order , present petitioner Rana Muhammad Saleem (so-called/alleged purchaser) filed revision petition which was dismissed by the Secretary Ministry of Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony ,Islamabad/Revisional Authority vide order dated 12.08.2020. Hence, this writ petition.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties and gone through the record with their able assistance.
4. As per Revenue record/Jamabandi for the years, 1958-59, 1962-63, 1972-73, the suit property was owned by Gurdawara Baba Tehl Singh. On filing of Reference by the Deputy Administrator , the Chairman ETPB treating the said land as trust property , ordered for its sale to the respondents Nos. 5 to 7. Against the above determination, in suo motu jurisdiction available under section 17 of the ETPB Act, the Revisional Authority remanded the matter to the Chairman for reconsideration and re-deciding of the matter according to law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties vide order dated 07.04.2001. For ready reference, section 17 of the Act ibid is reproduced as under:--
17. Revision.---The Federal Government may at any time of its own motion or otherwise, call for the record of any case or proceedings under this Act, which is pending or in which the Chairman, an Administrator , a Deputy Administrator or an Assistant Administrator has passed an order , for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of such an order , and may pass such order in relation thereto as the Federal Government thinks fit: Provided that the record of any case or proceedings in which the Chairman, an Administrator , a Deputy Administrator or an Assistant Administrator has passed an order shall not be called for under this section on the application of any aggrieved person made after the expiration of fifteen days from the date of such order ."
In the post remand proceedings, the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board in compliance of the aforementioned order , set aside the settlement arrived at through negotiations vide order dated 12.05.2004, and ordered for sale of the said property through unrestricted open auction as per law. The said order was assailed by the respondent No. 7 through revision petition before the Secretary Ministry of Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony , Islamabad/Revisional Authority who dismissed the same vide order dated 06.01.20 07 with the observation that the property be put to open auction and first right of refusal be given to it. Respondent No.7, Messrs Precision Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., feeling aggrieved of the order dated 06.01.2007 filed Writ Petition No.5702/2007 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 14.09.2007. Being dissatisfied with the above order , the respondent No.7 filed Civil Petition No.1574-L/2007 which was dismissed as withdrawn from the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 16.06.2010, as such, order dated 12.05.2014 passed by the Chairman has attained the status of finality and became past and close transaction. Relia nce is placed on Pakistan International Airlines Corpora tion v. Aziz ur Rehman Chaudhary and another (2016 SCMR 14). Further the matter has already been finalized upto the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the property had been declared as evacuee trust property on 23.02.1999. As such, the Chairman, ETP Board has rightly dismissed the reference of respondent No.7 on.the principle of res judicata as the substantial question of facts and law has already been settled upto the level of the Hon'ble Apex Court of country and any further taking cognizance of the matter would culminate into unending litigation which is against the principle of law and also amount to double jeopardizing the successful party . The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled as Muhammad Chiragh-ud-Din Bhatti v. The Province of West Pakistan through Collector , Bahawalpur and 2 others ( 1971 SCMR 447 ) held as under:- "Even if section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code may not in terms apply in support of the plea of res judicata, it can hardly be disputed that the general principles of res judicata were clearly attracted to debar the petitioner from re- agitating the matter , afresh by a civil suit, which had been put at rest by a judgment of the High Court, passed in writ jurisdiction. The civil Court could not have by-passed or overridden the orders of the High Court competently made in another jurisdiction on the same subject between the same parties."
Reliance can also be placed on the case s titled as Abdul Majid and others v. Abdul Ghafoor Khan and others (PLD 1982 SC 146 ) and Sayed Dilawar Jan and 2 others v . Meftah Uddin and 3 others ( 2015 MLD 1408 ).
5. The respondent No. 7 has not challe nged the vires of order dated 31.10.2019 whereby its reference was dismissed by the Chairman, ETP Board. The present petitioner Rana Muhamma d Saleem, the so-called/alleged purchaser of the suit property claims that he has purchased the land in question but he has not given any information in respect of the sale transaction (sale deed/mutation) in his favour . The petitioner has neither appended any alleged title document with this petition nor mentioned any details in this regard. If any person has allegedly transferred the land in question in favour of the petitioner without any title, even then the petitioner has no protection in law. The land in question, vide order dated 23.09.1999, passed by the Chairman ETPB, has already been declared as Evacuee Trust Property , as such, no one, except the competent authority , is empowered to sale/transfer the same, therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order dated 12.08.2020.
Moreover the petitioner claims protection of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, suffice it to say that a subsequent purchaser is always saddled with extraordinary responsibility of taking care and caution to deeply scrutinize the genuineness or originality or legality of the title of the vendor before entering into the sale transaction under the principle of caveat emptor subject to incidence of sections 10 and 11 of Transfer of Property Act and if any infirmity or deficiency subsequently emerges in the title of the vendor that shall always travel with the land and subsequent purchaser is precluded to raise plea of protection under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act rather they have to face the consequence of his own negligence for non-making a bona fide/ reasonable investigation into title of the vendor as required under the principle of Caveat Emptor . Reliance can be placed on the case titled as Muhammad Yamin and others v. Settle ment Commissioner and others (1976 SCMR 489).
Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a reported case titled Bashir Ahmad and others v. Additional Commissioner with powers of Settlement Commissioner (L) and others ( 1983 SCMR 1 199) held as under:- "....Since, an allotment of land is subject to the provision of sections 10 and 11, every purchaser from a allottee is to be saddled with the knowledge that the transaction of purchase is subject to the incidence of those sections and as such he cannot raise the plea of protec tion on the principle of section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. His remedy is not against the Department but against the vendor . We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the view taken in the earlier two cited cases will govern the contention raised before us."
In another case titled as Talib Hussain and others v. Member , Board of Revenue and others (2003 SCMR 549), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "It is important to emphasis that petitioner's entitlement is based upon the entitlement of Syed Nizamuddin, therefore, petitioner either to have survive or sink depending upon determination of legal status of the property which was transferred to him and as now he has failed to keep his entitlement alive, therefore, petitioner's claim is bound to be rejected."
In a case titled as Abdul Hamid v . M.B.R. and others ( 1994 CLC 1 160), this Court held as under:-- "4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that all the petitioners are bona fide purchasers for value of the land from the transferee and they are entitled to retain the same. It is not disputed that transfer in favour of Noor Muhammad was found to be fraudulent. Not only that it was further found by the Notified Officer that Noor Muhammad, the real claimant, A was not traceable and some other perso n had obtained allotment by impersonating him. As the vendor of the petitioners had no right in the land, he could not pass any title to the petitioners and they have no consequent ly legal right to retain the land (See Gul Muhammad and others v. The Additional Settlement Commissioner and others (1985 SCMR 491) and Manzoor Hussain v. Fazal Hussa in and others ( 1984 SCMR 1027 )."
This Court in a case titled as Mst. Aziz Bibi and 22 others v. Additional Commissioner (Revenue) with the Powers of Settlement Commissioner Aands), Lahore Division and another (2002 YLR 3268 ) it is observed by this Court that since an allotment of land is subject to the provision or sections 10 and 11. of Transfer of Property Act, every purchaser from an allottee is saddled-with the obligation to acquire deep knowledge with regard to genuinity of the vendor's title as transaction of sale/ purchase is subject to the incidence of above provisions, as such, the subsequent vendee is debarred to take plea of protection on the principle of bona fide purchaser as envisaged in section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, whereas his manifest remedy is available against the vendor and not against the department. A similar view has been reiterated in another case titled as Rasheed Ahmad and 2 others v. Additional Commissioner (Rev .) Notified Officer Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala and others ( 2007 CLC 1801 ) wherein the learned Division Bench of this Court held as under:-- "8. Abdul Baqi is the original allottee. His claim was found bogus. Sale in favou r of respondents will not confer better title to them. They will sink or swim with him and thus, are not protected under section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. W e respectfully follow the above view .
As such it can conveniently been concluded that the petitioner has no case against the respondent department and is advised to trace his legal remedy against the vendors before the appropriate forum.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned, orders passed by the Chairman as well as Federal Secretary and has also not identified any jurisdictional defect calling for interference by this Court.
7. The competent fora (The Chairman and Secretary) in Evacuee Trust Property Board had given concurrent findings of facts and law against the petitioner which conclusions are based on cogent reasons, as such, same do not call for any interference by this Court. Reliance is placed on the cases titled as Muhammad Husain Munir and others v. Sikandar and others (PLD 1974 SC 139), Muhammad Sher and another v. Mian Kamal Shah and 11 others (1987 CLC 47) Muhammad Akram v. Member Board of Revenue and others PLJ 2014 Lahore 484 and Muhammad Akram v . Member , Board of Revenue (Judicial-V1 1) and 8 others 2014 MLD 780 .
6. In view of above, this writ petition is dismissed in limine being devoid of any merits.