' This writ petition calls in question the order dated 26-10-1982, of the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Faisalabad, whereby he cancelled the P. T. D. (Annexure 'A') issued in favour of the petitioner, in respect of Plot No, K. H. No, 129/13/2, 129/13/3, Block No, 4, Gojra.
2. When the petition came up for preliminary hearing on 1-11-1982, I passed an order, requisitioning the record of the Settlement Department, inter alia with the following observations :- "Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that assuming but not conceding that the transfer order (Annexure "B") was unauthorisedly issued by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, the same could not have been cancelled by the successor Deputy Settlement Commissioner or the Administrator (R. P.) without adverting to the points specifically raised in the written arguments and also pressed at the time of hearing of the case. The impugned order merely states that the P. T. D.
Has been cancelled and no reason whatsoever has been assigned for passing this order. Prima facie the impugned order is bad in law."
3. The original record has been perused with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
The order, written in Urdu, passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner reads thus :- {{URDU TEXT}}
4. A bare perusal of the impugned order, therefore, would show that no reasons whatsoever have been assigned in passing the impugned order. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who is present in Court, has however, drawn my attention to another order of even date typed in English.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the authenticity of the order written in English, in that, there is no mention whatsoever in the order, written in Urdu, that detailed reasons are given in the order written in English. Furthermore, the petitioner applied for certified copy of the impugned order, dated 26-10-1982, vide Application No, 447, dated 26-10-1982 and the Reader of the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, supplied the order written in Urdu (Annexure '0'). Had there been some order written in English as well, then the certified copy of that order would have also been supplied to the petitioner. It is not the case of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that the Copying Agency/Reader of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner inadvertently failed to supply the certified copy of the order written in English while supplying the copy of the order written in Urdu. I am conscious of the fact that in terms of section 114 of the Evidence Act, presumption of regularity attaches to all judicial acts. The presumption is, however, rebuttable. In the instant case the possibility cannot be ruled out that the order written in English was written subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, in that, by order dated 1-11-1982, I not only requistioned the entire relevant record but also ordered the Deputy Settlement Commissioner/ Deputy Administrator (R. P.), Faisalabad, who passed the impugned order, to appear in person before this Court. Furthermore, there is no mention whatsoever of the English written order in the Urdu written order, which is self- contained. The impugned order is, therefore, ex facie bad in law. When faced with this situation, Sh.
Zia Ullah, learned counsel for respondent No, 2, submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court by supressing material facts, in that the property, in dispute, stood transferred long ago in fovour of one, Mian Muhammad Siddique, as an industrial concern, by an order dated 16th of December, 1959, and P. T. D. Was also issued in his favour on 29-6-1968. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in pursuance of the application made by respondent No, 2 as an informer and also because of the fact that he is allegedly in possession of a portion of the disputed property. This objection has already been overruled by me vide interim order of even date.
5. Be that as it may, it may be reiterated that after the repeal of Evacuee Laws, respondent No, 2 has no locus standi to make any application to the Settlement Authorities for the cancellation of the P. T. D. Issued in favour of the petitioner, even if it is assumed to be obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. It is an admitted fact that respondent No, 2 is neither transferee of any portion of the property, in dispute, nor an applicant for the transfer of the same. He has, therefore, no locus standi to make an application either before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner or to object to any favour order that may be passed in favour of the petitioner. In the instant case, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has failed to pass any speaking order, c and the authenticity of the order, written in English dated 26-10-1982, is doubtful. This by itself is a sufficient ground for striking down the impugned order.
6. For the reasons stated above, the impugned orders dated 26-10-1982 (English written as well as Urdu written), of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Faisalabad, are hereby declared as without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. The result is that the case is remanded for disposal afresh in accordance with law.
7. Finally it may also be observed that the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Faisalabad, has already expressed his view through the order, written in English, dated 26-10-1982, therefore, any submission by the aggrieved persons and their counsel before him, in persuance of this remand would be an exercise in futality. The Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement and Residual Properties) is, therefore, directed to entrust this case to some other Officer for disposal afresh, in accordance with law, and after due service on all the interested parties and providing them with an adequate opportunity of being beard. It is also hereby directed that before proceeding to decide the case on merits, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, to whom the case may he entrusted by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, shall, in the first instance, determine and decide the scope of his jurisdiction after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws. With these observations the writ petition is accepted with no orders as to costs.