1. ' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.--The petitioner, Allahabad Co-operative Housing Society, has challenged the letter/order, dated 15-5-1983 of the Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar Karachi, respondent No,1 in this petition, This letter, order is reproduced here in below:- "To The Station House Officer Gulshan Police Station Karachi.
2. ' Subject: Case Registered by the Anti-Corruption Establishment under sections 420,468/477-A, P. P.
3. C. section 5(2) Anti-Corruption Act, Martial Law Orders Nos.14 and 59 and CMLA Regulations under the orders of Martial Law Administrator, Zone "C", Karachi, vide F. I. R. No, 82 of 1982 against Muhammad Taqi Qutbuddin Niazi and Mr.Huzur Ahmad Khan the then Assistant Rehabilitation MukhtiarkaRs,"
4. ' In the abovementioned case on the receipt of 11,923 P.I.Urban Units from District Sanghar which were already utilized against allotment of land in Sanghar District, about 91-00 acres of land was also allotted against the sum allotted units in various Dehs of Karachi District. Moreover forgery, fraud and tempering of allotment record in Karachi District was also committed. On the report of the learned Deputy Commissioner, Karachi to the Martial Law Authorities the case has been registered under the above sections by the Anti-Corruption Establishment under the orders of the Martial Law Administrator Zone "C", Karachi vide F. I. R. 82 of 1982. The accused were arrested and the challan was also put up before the Martial Authority. The accused were later released on bail.
5. The case will be tried by the Court for allotment of land on bogus units, forgery, fraud and tampering of Govt. record.
6. ' In one of the Khatooni and R.L.II Register (the allotment which was made in the name of claimant S.Imam Ali Quadri) after tampering the above documents the entry of Survey No,321 of Deh Gujro, Tappo Songal was made after the confirmation of allotment of Survey Nos. 261 and 264 of Deh Gujro. This is a bogus entry in the allotment record of Survey No, 521 Deh Gujro. The Surrey No,521 Deh Gujro seems to have been disposed of by Muhammad Taqi Nihariwala to someone else.
7. ' It was reported that some persons raising constructions on the land of Survey No,521 of Deh Gujro.
8. I inspected the site on 8-5-1983 and the report was found correct. At the time of inspection it was found on the site that three bungalows were under construction which were raised up to the roof level while the construction on the other few plots were raised up to the plinth level, M/s. Muhammad Ismail and Akhtar lqbal who were found the site were raising constructions on the plots, who have given their plot Nos. as A/4 and A/13 of Survey No,521, One chowkidar was found on plot No,A/30 of Survey No,521 who has informed that the house is being constructed by the brother- in-law of one Shaheed Yousuf. The other few persons have also raised constructions up to the plinth level. These plots reported to have been sold by one Mr.Hashmi to the present persons by forming some society known as "Shahmoonabad".
9. ' Since Survey No,521 of Deh Gujro was obtained by one Muhammad Taqi Nihariwala in the name of claimant S.Imam Ali Quadri against already utilized units of claim, by forgery, fraud, and by tampering the Government record for which he was arrested by the orders of the Martial Law Authorities and was later released on bail. At the time of registration of Case No,82 of 1982 by the Anti-Corruption Establishment under the orders of the Martial Law Authorities Survey No,521 of Deh Gujro was lying vacant. Now by raising construction on this survey number they want to change the nature of this plot from the constructed one to save this number from cancellation.
10. ' You are, therefore requested to take necessary action against those who are raising constructions on Survey No,521 of Deh Gujro (Block No,13 of Scheme No,24 known as Gulshan-e-lqbal) and order them to stop further constructions on these plots of Survey No,521 till the disposal of Case No,82 of 1982 by the Military/Civil Court. You are further requested to depute your staff on the site of this plot so that no further construction be raised. The photo stat copies of various cuttings of news published in the various newspapers are also enclosed herewith.
11. ' Copy forwarded with compliments to:
(1) The Director, Planning and Urban Design Karachi, Development Authority, KDA Building, Karachi, with the request to cancel the layout plan if approved by him against Survey No,521, of Deh Gujro (Block No,13, Scheme No,24 known as "Gulshane lqbal" in the name of "Shamoonabad" to avoid further complications in the crime case No,82 of 1982. He further requested to ask the Controller of Buildings to cancels all the Building plans of the individuals if approved by him or by his staff.
(2) The Deputy Commissioner, Karachi East for information and necessary action with reference to this office letter No,R.M./16/83, dated 9-5-1983. This immediate action was very necessary as the people are raising constructions on the site of Survey No,521 of Deh Gujro with full speed to change the nature of plot.
(3) The Superintendent of police, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Karachi, with reference to Case No,F.I.R.82 of 1982. He is requested to send the copy of F.I.R. No,82/82 and the copy of challan submitted to the Martial Law Authority.
12. (Sd)/- Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar Karachi 15-5-1983"
13. ' We have heard Mr.Muhammad Ali Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Syed Sarfraz Ahmad, learned Assistant Advocate-General for the State.
2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order, dated 15-5-1983 is patently illegal order passed without jurisdiction by the Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar, Karachi. Neither the impugned order nor the counter-affidavit filed by Nazeer Ahmad Qureshi s/o Muhammad Raze, Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar, shows under what provision the impugned order has been passed. In his counter-affidavit, respondent No,1 (Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar) has referred to the fraud and other criminal acts on the part of certain persons, not the petitioner society, but in respect of specific pleas taken in the memo. of petition that the impugned order has been passed without authority and jurisdiction, the Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar has not referred to the authority or provision of law under which the impugned order has been passed. We find a vague reference in para. 20 of his counter-affidavit, where the Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar says that it is his duty to safeguard the Government interest, and in para. 21 of his counter-affidavit where it is said that all the actions taken by the Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar are under the instructions and orders of his superioRs, However, no reference has been made to any specific instructions and any specific orders of any authority. The learned Assistant Advocate-General was not able to point out any provision of law under which the impugned order could have been passed by the Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar.
3. We are of the view that the impugned order, dated 15-5-1983 has been passed without lawful authority. This constitutional petition is allowed to the extent that the order, dated 15-5-1983 of Rehabilitation Mukhtiarkar, Karachi, is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and the same is of no legal effect and it is further directed that no action will be taken against the petitioner by any of the respondents pursuant to the order, dated 15-5- 1983. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not claim costs. Accordingly there will be no order as to costs.