Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J.--In the captioned constitutional petitions, a common question of law is involved; therefore, all are being taken up and heard together for disposal through this common Order.
2. All the petitioners claim ownership of the subject premises i.e (i) C.S.G/4029 admeausuring 448.8 sq. yards, (ii) C.S G/2834, 2835, 2836 admeasuring 193.3 sq. yards, (iii) C.S No. G/3436 admasuring 209.3 sq. yards and (iv) C.S No. G/3433/1 admeasuring 194.3 sq. yards all situated at Phuleli Preetabad Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as Suit Property in C.Ps No. D-362, 363, 426 & 427 of 2006) as well as property bearing (i) C.S No. B-104 admeasuring 37.5 sq. yards, (ii) C.S No. B-95/1 admeasuring 17.0 sq. yards & B-95/2 admasuring 16.8 sq. yards, (iii) C.S No. B-105 admeasuring No. 37.6 sq yards, (iv) C.S No. B-103 admeausimg 12.8 sq. yards, (v) C.S No. B-93 admeasuring 18.1 sq. yards, (vi) C.S No. B-106 admeasuring 37.7 sq. yards, (vii) C.S No. B-101 admeasuring 34.8 sq. yards,
(viii) C.S No. B-94 admeasuring 32.02 sq. yards, (ix) C.S No. B-102 admeasuring 37.3 sq. yards, (x) C.S No. B-93 admeasuring 18.1 sq. yards, (xi) C.S No. B-98 admeasuring 299 sq. feet & (xii) C.S No. B-108 admeasuring 36.7 sq. yards all situated at Station Road Math Distrit Badin (hereince after refererd to as Suit Proeperty in C.Ps No. D-53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 85, 89, 134 & 172 of 2008) and denied the status of suit property as Evacuee Trust Property; however, their stance was discarded by the Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board Lahore (`ETPB') vide impugned orders disclosed in the memo. of petitions, on the analogy that in the City Survey Record disclosed the suit properties as a Evacuee Trust Property. The petitioners assailed the vires of orders of Chairman ETPB before Secretary concerned, who was pleased to maintain the orders passed by Chairman ETPB.
3. Mr. Muhammad Arshad Pathan advocate for some of the petitioners, argued the matter at length, whereas, the rest of the counsel/parties in person, are called absent, despite the specific date being given in presence of their counsel, as the matter was partly heard on the previous date(s). However, we have gone through their pleadings, their arguments are that the impugned orders passed by learned Chairman, ETPB Lahore, are opposed to facts and law which tender the entire orders as unjustified; that the orders passed by the Secretary, Government of Pakistan; Ministry of Minority Camp at Karachi, is also against the law, justice and equity because he has erred to confirm the wrong orders passed by the Chairman ETPB, Lahore; that respondents 2 & 3 have illegally supported their department by causing loss to the petitioners, who are actual owners of the suit properties; that both the above mentioned authorities have failed to appreciate the documentary evidence showing that the suit property had been subjected to subsequent transfer and change of Khatta on the basis of Registered Sale Deeds and other authentic documents; that City Survey Extract in respect of suit properties do not confer entitlement for property to any person unless it is based and supported by authentic and registered deed; that the observation contained in the impugned orders regarding the period of Limitation as 50 years yet no provision has been quoted in the orders; that respondents have wrongly held "Punchayat of Hindu/Kalala" as Charitable Property, as respondent-ETPB has not produced any document to prove "Panchayat of Hindu/Kalals" as Charitable Trust; that the above mentioned authorities failed to appreciate the purpose, character and nature of above mentioned properties although the alleged Trust, mentioned as Hindu/Kala Punchayat was/is neither based on any Trust Deed, nor the creator of Trust or the Trustees of the said Punchayat are in existence in Pakistan; that the orders of authorities are in violation of law of Trust and the law concerning the Evacuee Trust Properties and Settlement law, otherwise in case the Property is found as Trust Property then also the petitioners are entitled for getting their P.T.D validated as the Chairman and Secretary of concerned department are not empowered to cancel the P.T.D on any ground; that Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed in the reported case in 1970 SCMR 503 that the property acquired by Punchayat did not by itself prove that Punchayat was a religious or charitable institutions or that any property acquired by the punchayat was a trust property. All the petitioners, through their pleadings, prayed for setting aside impugned orders, by saying that their proprietary rights may not be disturbed.
4. Mr. Zainuddin Shaikh, learned counsel representing respondent-ETPB, has opposed the petitions with the assertion that there is no merit in the contentions of petitioners in connection with the entries in the Record-of-Rights if any, which have been made based on allotment made under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Laws and which orders are a nullity in the eyes of law by purportedly exercising jurisdiction by the Settlement Department that cannot be done which is prohibited by law to dispose of the evacuee property under the garb of Rehabilitation and Settlement Laws. He further submitted that the purported deeds in question if any were executed incompetently and were in violation of the relevant ETPB laws and rules. He further contended that no approval was ever accorded to the transfer by the Federal Government and that the entire process was initiated which had no lawful authority. Learned counsel further submitted that the trust properties are charitable and the same are evacuee trust properties and the entry in the record of rights of the above-said property is sufficient proof to establish the nature of property as evacuee trust, which cannot be transferred to any person. He lastly submitted that the orders passed by Chairman ETPB and Secretary concerned are within the parameters of the law, thus no interference is required by this Court in Constitutional Petitions. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the cases of 1990 SCMR 25 Re-District Evacuee Trust Committee vs. Muhammad Umar and others, 1991 SCMR 2006, Re-Qazi Akbar Jan and others vs. The Chairman, District Evacuee Trust Committee, Peshawar and others, 2004 MLD 2033, Re-Muhammad Bashir through Attorney vs. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Religious Affairs, Zakat, Usher and Minorities Affairs, Islamabad and 4 others, 2009 SCMR 362, Re-Fayya zuddin Khan vs. Federal Government of Pakistan through Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Minorities Affairs Division, Islamabad and others, 2009 SCMR 375, Re-Administrator, Muslim Auqaf Punjab and others vs. Muhammad Mohsin and another and 2016 SCMR 679 Re-Khurshid Ahmed and others vs. Rana Mumtaz Ahmed and others.
5. Mr. Ghulam Abbas Sangi learned Assistant Attorney General has also supported the impugned orders passed by the Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Minorities (Minorities Affairs Division) Camp at Karachi. He further submitted that the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (No. lawn) 1958 contemplated Compensation Pool as well as a Trust Pool. While the evacuee properties went to the Trust Pool and the Settlement Authorities could only transfer properties out of Compensation Pool and not the Trust Pool; that disposal of the evacuee property was not contemplated by Section 10 of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (No. XIII), 1975. He lastly prayed for dismissal of the petitions in terms of the ratio of latest decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the Trust property case.
6. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Arshad Pathan learned counsel for some of the petitioners as well as learned AAG and have gone through the pleadings of remaining petitioners; and, perused the available record, with the assistance of the parties present in Court.
7. The questions involved in the present petitions are whether the transfer of the suit properties in favor of petitioners could be canceled and treated as being Hindu/Kallal Panchayat, and not covered by Section 10 of The Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975; and, whether the suit Properties were available for disposal in terms of Section 3 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958; and whether the extract from the Record of Rights or City Survey Hyderabad and District Badin show the subject properties being an Evacuee Property and reserved for a charitable purpose; and, could be disposed of by way of sale and purchase; and/transfer by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in terms of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (No. XXVIII) 1958 and/or subsequent Act, 1975, repealing the Act, 1958.
8. To appreciate the aforesaid propositions, it is expedient to glance over Section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, which reads as under:- "(I) An immovable evacuee trust property--
(a) if situated in a rural area and utilized bona fide under any Act prior to June 1964, for allotment against the satisfaction of verified claims; and
(b) if situated in an urban area and utilized bona fide under any Act for transfer against the satisfaction of verified claims in respect of which Permanent Transfer Deeds were issued before June 1968, shall be deemed to have been validly transferred by sale to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, and the sale proceeds thereof shall be reimbursed to the Board and shall form part of the Trust Pool."
9. It appears from the aforesaid Section 10 (1) (b) of the Act, 1975, that there are two conditions which were/are required to be satisfied. Firstly the P.T.D. must have been issued before June 1968, and secondly, the transfer by Settlement Authorities must be bonafide, and the question, whether such transfer is bona fide or not is to be decided by the Chairman ETPB.
10. Prima facie, the subject properties were validated by Settlement Authorities under the repealed law; however the Chairman reversed the findings of Settlement Authorities on the analogy that the subject property was not available for transfer being Hindu/Kallal Panchayat, under Section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 with further reasoning that under the Act, 1958 there was a separate pool of Evacuee Trust Properties which could not be transferred; and, evacuee trust properties do not form part of compensation pool; and, nothing could be done in respect of these properties, without obtaining the prior approval of Government which, it is alleged, was not obtained in the present case.
(Sic) 'Hindu Panchayat' denote, it was not the ownership of any particular individual Hindu but was owned by the entire Hindu community, and the Custodian Department had to take control of the I same for its proper management, an except whereof is reproduced: "In the circumstances, the disputed property was not evacuee property and could not be legally transferred to claimants after the enforcement of settlement laws and the allotment thereof by the Settlement authorities vide orders, dated 12-12-1959 and confirmed by Order No. 288, dated 12-4- 1962 are coram non judice, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The subsequent transfers made by the allottees are resultantly, illegal and not binding on the appellant."
14. It is well-settled law that any order passed by any authority having no jurisdiction is a nullity in the eye of law and can be safely ignored whenever it is being acted upon. Besides, there is no question of limitation on the part of Chairman ETPB in the initiation of the subject proceedings for the simple reason that evacuee properties attached to charitable, religious, or educational trusts were excluded from the jurisdiction of concerned authorities for transfer to the beneficiaries. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality.
15. In the light of what has been discussed above, the orders of competent authority are based on the extract from the property register card, City Survey. Besides these are findings of fact not liable to interference under Article 199 of the Constitution.
16. These Constitutional Petitions are accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs.