1. ' The Petitioners seek to challenge the common order of respondent No,1 dated 22nd May, 1975 in case No, SC K-13/74 (Claims) Syed Murtaza Hussain Khan and others whereby the claims of two brothers and two sisters of Petitioner No, 1 were allowed, but the claim of the petitioner and that of his late brother Mir Ali Naqi predecessor in interest of Petitioners 2 (a to!) was rejected. The aforesaid order is impugned to the extent of such rejection only.
2. ' The brief facts leading to the filing of the Petition are as under :- ' The Petitioners are displaced persons from the State of Hyderabad Deccan where they had abandoned agricultural lands (Seer and Khudkasht in their Jagirs). The Petitioner No, I had five other brothers and two sisters, namely, (1) Mir Murtaza Hussain (2) Mir Zulfiqar Ali, (3) Mir Ali Naqi,
(4) Mir Baqar' Ali, (5) S. M. Abbas, and sisters (6) Mst. Zahra Begum (7), Mst. Izzatun Nisa Begum who had inherited from their father in Hyderabad State in the year 1918., It is the case of the petitioners that Petitioner No, 1 alongwith his brothers and sisters aforesaid, after migrating to Pakistan by 21st June, 1949 were declared evacuees with effect from 1st August, 1949 and their evacuee shares in the property were taken over by the Custodian Evacuee Property Hyderabad State. Two of the Petitioner's brothers, namely, Mir Baqar Ali and S. M. Abbas stayed in Hyderabad and did not migrate with the Petitioners to Pakistan upto the time of the taking over of petitioner's evacuee shares by Custodian Hyderabad State. It is further the case of the petitioners that, after migration of petitioner No, 1 and his aforesaid three brothers and two sisters from Hyderabad to Pakistan in the month of June, 1949, the Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation 1358 Fasli was promulgated and gazetted on 15th August, 1949. The petitioner No, 1, his three brothers and two sisters already referred to 'above, finally migrated to Pakistan on 21st June, 1949 and settled in Pakistan about two months prior to the promulgation of the Regulation on 15th August, 1949. The petitioner No, 1 and his three brothers on 22nd March, 1956 filed joint claim for proprietary rights in Seer and Khudkasht lands left in Jagirs in Hyderabad, and later petitioner No, l's two sisters Mst. Zahra Begum and Mst.
3. Izzatun Nisa Begum also filed such claim. The Central Government of Pakistan vide its Notification dated 7th April, 1958 invited claims for Jagirs to be submitted in Form Schedule No, 5-A which were also filed Pby the petitioners. The CentraLGovernment.Afteraameame with renew Notification S.R.O.
4. No, 466 gazetted on 2nd October, 1959. The said claim registered No, 6035/IV filed under Schedule V was verified on 30th September, 1959 by the Deputy Claims Commissioner Ward No, IV, Karachi and in pursuance of the verification order Q.P.R.I. Was filed and entitlement certificate Q.P.R.V. No, 24783 for 36,000 P.
1. Units were issued to the petitioner No, 1 on 30th November, 1959 and Q.P.R. File No, 24716/1339 for 36,000 P.I. Units to Ali Naqi on 14th November, 1959. The petitioner's claim has been disallowed by respondent 1 and hence the Petition. It is the further case of the petitioners that in 1963 the Officer on Special Duty Central Record Office, Lahore without any authority issued show-cause notice to the petitioner No 1 and other claimants to appear and explain why their entitlement certificates should not be cancelled as the notification of the Central Government in respect of claims of Jagirs had been withdrawn on 25th September, 1959. Aggrieved by the aforesaid notice petitioner No, 1 and his brothers and sisters filed writ petition in the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore being Writ Petition No, R/25063 Mir Murtaza Hussain Khan and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others. A Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore by a common judgment passed in Syed Fidvi Ali and others V. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others dated 10th May, 1964 disallowed the petitioners writ petition. The judgment is reported in PLD 1964 Lahore 756.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan, the petitioner No, 1 and his brothers and sisters and a number of other claimants filed petitions for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court.
6. ' The Supreme Court by common judgment in Nawab Eounaq Ali. Khan and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (1) set aside the judgment and orders of the High Court, quashed the orders of the Officer on Special Duty and remanded the cases to the ClaimS Commissioner. The relavent portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under :- "In the light of the above conclusions, I am of the opinion that the judgments and orders of the High Court must be set aside and the writ allowed for quashing the impugned notices and orders issued by the Officer on Special Duty. Having done this however I am of the 'further opinion that all these cases must be remanded back to the Claims Commissioner to re-examine each case after giving the parties due notice to produce relevant evidence in support of their respective claims to decide whether the claim in respect of the Jagirs verified either under Schedule V or Schedule V-A were in respect of properties left by them in India before their respective dates of migration and whether on such dates interests claimed were subsisting interests. The Claims Commissioner will also examine if any claim had been verified after the publication on 2nd of October, 1959 of the Notification No, S.R.O.-466 and the effect thereof in the light of Martial Law. Regulations Nos. 84, 89 and 91.
7. ' The Claim Commissioner will also examine whether claims filed after the last date for filing claims under Schedule V-A bad expired, could be validly accepted and verified under Schedule V in the light of Circulars issued by him between April, 1959 and the 10th September, 1959."
8. ' The cases were transferred under section 2 (2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 to respondent 1 who in his aforesaid mentioned order rejected the claims of the petitioner No, 1 and his deceased brother Mir Ali Na.
9. ' I have heard Messrs Muhammad Abdul Aziz Khan and Hassan Asghar Rizvi, the learned counsel for Petitioners and Mr. Abdus Sattar, the learned Advocate for both the official respondents. The portions of the impugned common order concerning the rejection of claims of Petitioner No, 1 and late Mir Ali Naqi, the predecessor in interest of petitioners shown at No, 2 from (a) to (f) are reproduced for ready reference as under :- "3. Mir Ali Naqi- The joint claim form filed shows his.Date of migration as 21st June, 1949 In form MR-I, he declared 1949 as his year of migration. He could not file any documentary evidence to prove his migration before 15th September 1949. I therefore hold that Mir Ali Naqi had migrated to Pakistan afte the date of abolition of Jagirdari system in Hyderabad Deccan and reject his claim verified by the Deputy Claims Commissioner dated 30th September, 1959, having left no subsisting interest in Jagir in India."
4. Mir Mustafa Ali Khan- The joint Claim form shows date of migration as 21st June, 1949, whereas in form MR-1, filed under u M.L.R. 84, he declared Dec. 1948 as date of arrival in Pakistan but he could not file any documentary evidence regarding his migration to Pakistan. I therefore, hold that Mr. Mustafa Ali Khan had migrated to Pakistan after the abolition of Jagirdari system in Hyderabad State and reject his claim verified by the Deputy Claims Commissioner dated 30th September, 1959, having left no subsisting interest in Jagir in India."
10. It is apparent from a reading of the aforesaid extracts from the order that the learned respondent No, 1 rejected the claims by the common observation in both the cases of rejection, that the claimant could not file any documentary evidence to prove his migration before 15th September, 1949. However, in paragraph 3 of the order the learned respondent No, 1 had observed as under :- "As regards date of migration to Pakistan, the learned counsel has cited documentary evidence produced by them at the time of verification of their claim viz. Letters from the Custodian Evacuee Property Hyderabad Deccan, ration cards and admission certificates of their daughters in School."
11. ' It is, therefore, apparent that even, according to his own assertion, the aforesaid documentary evidence had been produced and, therefore, it has been produced and, therefore, it was for him to discuss the effect of each one of these documents and to give specific and proper reasons for rejecting the documentary evidence instead of just mentioning that no documentary evidence was produced. Mr. Abdus Sattar, the learned counsel for respondent 1, concedes that, for the reasons stated above, the order rejecting the claims of the petitioners cannot be said to be a speaking order. The impugned order so far as it concerns the rejection of the claims of the petitioners is, under the circumstances stated, considered to be of no legal effect and is accordingly set aside, and the matter is remanded to respondent No, 1 for considering the documentary evidence exhibited in the case earlier and recording his views with regard to the same before passing orders. There will be no orders with regard to costs.