' This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 whereby Muhammad Abdullah petitioner wants this Court to declare the order, dated 15-1-1982 passed by Settlement Commissioner/ Administrator (RP) Multan Division Headquarter, Lahore, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. The facts leading up to this writ petition (as stated by the learned counsel) in brief are that Muhammad Abdullah petitioner purchased land measuring 211 Knalas and 6 Marlas, on 20-2-1953 from Central Bank of India followed by Mutation No, 283, dated 15-6-1954. Since then, the petitioner is in occupation of the same as an owner. The land measuring' 1 Kanal and 2 Marlas, Khasra No, 106/7/1 was, however, proposed to be auctioned as evacuee property. The petitioner filed suit on 23-1-1969 challenging the auction and claiming the ownership of 211 Kanals and 6 Marlas on the basis of title alleging that he is also owner of Khasra No, 106/7/1 measuring 1 Kanal and 2 Marlas.
The Settlement Inspector made statement before the civil Court that the Department would not auction the land of the petitioner but wanted to auction only 1 Kanal and 2 Marlas, Khasra No, 106/7/1 as it was an evacuee property. On the same day in view of this statement; the petitioner withdrew the suit. Later on, in an auction which was held on 19-4-1978, the petitioner purchased this land, i,e, 1 Kanal and 2 Marlas, Khasra No, 106/7/1. On 19-4-1978, the petitioner was informed by his tenant that Halqa Patwari has come on the site to take the standing crops on superdari. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner per memo. Dated 28-3-1978 asked the Administrator, Municipal Committee to render necessary assistance in carving out plots of land in dispute, whereon, the petitioner moved Writ Petition No, 568-78 on 26-4-1978 which was, however, dismissed on the same day in limine, on the ground that the petitioner has rushed to the High Court without having resort to the judicial remedy available to him and that he should have approached the Rehabilitation Authorities. It was also observed that he could go to the civil Court for his redress. It was further observed that since the memo. Was not the order, the same could not be challenged in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner then approached the Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member Board of Revenue who entrusted the application to Deputy Settlement Commissioner for report. On 4-1-1979, the Deputy Custodian reported to the .Settlement Commissioner that this property could not be treated as evacuee property as it was exempted from the operation of evacuee laws. The respondent, however did not agree with the Deputy Custodian and rejected the application on 15- 1-1982. Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since under section 55 of Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, the property of the Central Bank of India was immune from operation of evacuee laws, the impugned order was passed without lawful authority.
' Mr. Ahmad Nawaz Qaisarani, the learned counsel for the respondents has, however, supported the impugned order.
4. After hearing the learned counsel and going through the record, I find that on 6-1-1983 the Secretary Rural reported to the Member Board of Revenue that "The certificate at Flag 'U' from the Officer Incharge on behalf of the Custodian of Enemy Property shows that the property was sold to said Muhammad Abdullah with the permission of the Custodian, Evacuee Property."
' I further find that on 14-1-1979, the Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property had submitted a report to the Settlement Commissioner that vide Notification No, SRO. 805 (k)/61, dated 30-8-1961, the Central Government has exempted the Bank named therein, from the operation of all the provisions of the Pak. (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 and that the name of the Central Bank of India Ltd., appears at serial No, 12 of the list in the notification. It appears that on 21- 1-1979, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had also submitted a report to the Settlement Commissioner to the effect that property in question was admittedly a non-evacuee property as it had been exempted from the operation of the provisions of the Evacuee Property Act, 1957 by the Central Government in the year, 1953 and it did not form part of the compensation pool. The impugned order indicates that these report which were very much relevant were not taken into consideration by the learned Settlement Commissioner. Since the impugned order has been A passed without considering important documents, it can be safely termed as arbitrary and illegal one and as such has been passed without lawful authority.
5. The upshot of the discussion is that the impugned order having been declared without lawful authority is, hereby, set aside and the case is sent back to the Administrator (Residul Property)
Multan Division, Multan/Settlement Commissioner, Multan for fresh decision according to law.