' This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 13th October, 1984 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore Division, Lahore, in pursuance of my order 29-6-1980, whereby, the petitioner's writ petition No. 1004/R-79, against the Settlement Commissioner's Order, dated 23-8-1979, was, accepted and the to the learned Member Board of Revenue (S & R Wing) for its decision afresh, by an officer notified under section 2(2) of Act XIV of 1975, in accordance with law and the directions given in the High Court's order, dated 9-7-1975, delivered in writ petition No. 772/R-73.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to a part of a plot measuring in all 8 Marlas 112 Sq. ft. comprising Khasra No. 7716, situated in Ichhra, Lahore. This order need not be burdened with the facts of the case as these have been fully enumerated in the impugned order as well as in my order, dated 29-6-1980. The reason which compelled the petitioner to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for the third time is that the Notified Officer has failed to comply with the High Court's directions given in the orders accepting the petitioner's previous two writ petitions. It may be observed that a part of the plot, which was transferred to the petitioner way back on 20-8- 1963 and this transfer was re-affirmed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (plots) under his order, dated 26-1-1972, was claimed by the residents, of the locality, arrayed herein as respondent No. 2 to 4, as a part of a public street and for a part thereof, measuring about 3 Marlas, Bashir Ahmad, respondent No. 1, claimed to be an applicant under Settlement Scheme No. VI. In thee impugned order, the learned Additional Commissioner, has held, that out of the plot aforesaid an area measuring 11 Marla is part of the public street. He further transferred three Marlas site to respondent No. 1, being in his possession. Rest of the plot has been allowed to remain with the petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently asserts that the street was extended through the plot in dispute, long after the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order, dated 20-8-1963.
However, to avoid prolongation of ,the litigation, without prejudice to the petitioner's case, against Bashir Ahmad respondent, his learned counsel has no objection if the site measuring 1/ Marla declared as part of the street, is, deleted from the transfer order. He has focussed his attention on the transfer of the site to respondent No. 1 and pointed out that the Notified Officer has not complied with the clear cut directions of the High Court embodied in the two aforesaid remand orders. There is much force in these submissions.
4. It is discernible from the High Court's order, dated 9-7-1975 that the validity of the Additional Settlement Commissioner's order, dated 5-9-1973, whereby he set aside the transfer order in favour of the petitioner and remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (plot) for fresh disposal of the case, was, subjected to challenge in writ petition No. 772/R-73. In that writ petition the petitioner challenged Bashir Ahmad's locus standi on the plea that he was neither in possession of the plot at the relevant time nor his application form was pending on the date of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order, dated 20-8-1963. The petitioner also questioned the sustenance of the respondent's appeal on the ground that it was barred by time. In this behalf, the petitioner's case was that the respondent encroached upon a part of the plot after its transfer in his name. He thereupon, on 26-1-1965 got a criminal case registered against him. According to the petitioner due to the commencement of criminal litigation against the respondent No. 1, he fully stood posted with the knowledge of order, dated 20-8-1963 and the appeal filed by him in the year 1972, culminating in the Additional Settlement Commissioner's order, dated 5-9-1973, was hopelessly, barred by time, but the latter did not advert to the question of limitation. This contention weighed with the learned Single Judge, in remanding the case to the Settlement authorities under his order, dated 9-7-1975. When the case came up before me in writ petition No. 1004/R-79 it was maintained:- " As the Additional Settlement Commissioner in his order, dated 5-9-1973 failed to adjudicate upon these points," his order was declared as of no legal effect and while accepting the writ petition a direction was given to the Settlement Authorities to determine the question of limitation, respondents' locus standi and the other issues discussed in the order, dated 9-7-1975. It is lamentable to note that the learned Settlement Commissioner, in the impugned order failed to adhere to the directions given by this Court. The order passed by him is thus liable to be struck down".
' In this view of the matter, as observed above, the case had to be remanded to the learned Member Board of Revenue.
5. The learned counsel for responded No. 1, rightly concedes that the learned Additional Commissioner has not adhered to the directions of the High Court. The impugned order, therefore, to the extent of transfer of the plot to Bashir Ahmad, shall have to be declared to have been made without lawful authority and I order accordingly.
' I had the mind to adjudicate upon the controvertial issues myself but Chaudhry Muhammad Nazir Ahmad, Advocate, the learned counsel for the Settlement Department, informs the Bench, that the relevant record is presently not available, I am, therefore, constrained to remand this case once again to the learned Member Board of Revenue (Revenue) for its fresh decision by a Notified Officer. For the latter's convenience the points to be determined by him and on which the case had earlier been remanded, are, precisely formulated as under:--
(i) Whether Bashir Ahmad was in possession of the plot, in accordance with law, entitling him to its transfer and his application form, in this respect was pending disposal, on 20-8-1963; and
(ii) Whether the respondents' appeal was within time?
' Unless both the points are answered in favour of respondent No. 1, he shall not be eligible for transfer of the plot. So far as the treating of a portion of the plot, as part of the public street, is concerned, the impugned order is not disturbed.
6. Before parting with the case I may bring it on the record that it is extremely improper on the part of the Tribunal below to ignore the orders of the High Court. In fact, the authorities below are wholly responsible for infliction of this protracted litigation, on the parties, at least since the decision of writ petition No. 772/R-73. Twice the case was remanded to them but the controvertial issues have not been adjudicated upon. The learned Member Board of Revenue (Revenue), shall, therefore, look into the matter and see that the directions of the High Court, are complied with and the case is decided expeditiously preferably by 30th of June, 1985.
' The parties are, left to bear their own costs.