' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan read with Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977 prays for a declaration that the proceeding before the respondent are without lawful authority and the notice dated 6th December, 1979 on the basis of which the proceedings have been commenced has been issued without jurisdiction and is nullity in the eyes of law.
2. The facts necessary for the purposes of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was allotted 255 kanals and 15 marlas of land in' village Minhala Khurd, Tehsil and District, Lahore on 26th July, 1960 which allotment was checked by the Border Area Committee in March, 1962 and again on 4th November, 1962. This allotment was kept intact all along when suddenly, the Border Area Committee had issued the impugned notice dated 6th December, 1979 to the petitioner presumably on the application of one Col. Sher Afzal Khan. This writ petition is directed against the aforesaid notice dated 6th December, 1979 and the consequent proceedings based thereon.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent Committee had not been lawfully constituted inasmuch as it is required that the Committee shall consist of two Members, one of whom is to be a representative of the Rehabilitation Commissioner and the other a representative of the Pakistan Army and the Rehabilitation Act, 1956 having been repealed with effect from 1st July, 1974 there was no Rehabilitation Commissioner existing on the day this Committee was constituted and the question of the nomination of any of his representatives on that day thus could never arise. He submitted that the factum of the illegal constitution of the Border Area Committee was taken into consideration by the Legislator himself and to have properly constituted Committee, the West Pakistan Border Area Regulation, 1959 was amended by the Punjab Ordinance (III of 1981). Para. 4 of the aforesaid Martial Law Regulation was amended so as to substitute the words "one being a representative of the Rehabilitation Commissioner and the other a representative of the Pakistan Army" by the words "one to be appointed by the Board of Revenue and the other a representative of the Pakistan Army to be nominated by the General Headquarters". In the context of the above position, the learned counsel contended that the position that now emerges is that the Committee which issued the notice was not lawfully constituted.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended, that the respondent concedes that the impugned notice may b. Quashed, provided the quashing of the notice shall not be a bar to the B initiation of fresh proceedings by the present lawfully constituted Committee.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied if the present notice is quashed.
6. In view of the foregoing, I accept the writ petition and declare that the impugned notice dated 6th December, 1979 has been issued without lawful authority. The above declaration, however, shall not preclude the lawfully constituted Border Area Committee from acting in accordance with law.
' There will, however, be no order as to costs.