' MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.--The dispute between the parties relates to land measuring 24 Kanals 11 Marlas situated in Chak No. 55, Tehsil and District Kasur. It was allotted to Hussain Bakhsh respondent No. 1 and his brother Gul Muhammad in lieu of their mortgagee rights. The latter has died and his land was transferred to his widow Mst. Aisma respondent No. 2, and Hussain Bakhsh being the brother of the deceased. During the pendency of the appeal, Mst. Aisma also expired and has been substituted by his legal representatives.
2. In pursuance of the Scheme formulated under Para. 7-A of Chapter II of part 1 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, governing such allotments, the Chief Settlement Commissioner invited declarations, in form M.G.R.I from such mortgagees within a specified period. They were also given the option to purchase the land allotted to them, at the rate of 10 per Produce Index Units. It is not disputed that the date for submission of such forms was extended from time to time and the last extension lasted upto 31-3-1967.
3. It is discernible from the record that on the application of the appellant and Dontali respondent No. 3, that Hussain Bakhsh and Gul Muhammad deceased did not file form M.G.R., the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (L) on 3-1-1962 cancelled their allotment and ordered allotment of the land in question, to the applicants but the same Officer on 12-3-1962 recalled the said order on the ground that it had been passed erroneously.
4. One Muhammad Younis Khan who is not a party to this I.-C.A. and claimed to be an informer, preferred an appeal against the appellant, from the order, dated 12-3-1962, questioning the withdrawal of the order of 3-1-1962. It was heard by an Officer by the name of Ch. Muhammad Nawaz Cheema who maintained that the order, dated 3-1-1962 did not call for interference and restored the same. It may be observed, that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were not party to the proceedings, culminating in the order, dated 1-2-1963. The latter challenged this order through an appeal. This appeal and another appeal, preferred by Muhammad Younis Khan were heard together and rejected by Mr. Ata Mohi-ud-Din, the then Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore under his order, dated 19-11-1963. He held that the land had rightly been cancelled from the Khata of Hussain Bakhsh.
5. The rejection of their appeal, was, assailed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 through a revision. Mr. Mir Ajam Khan the then Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, who was seized of this revision, took the view that the order, dated 19-11-1963, was, passed by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, as a revisional authority, under subsection (4) of section 11 of the Pakistan Rehabilita tion Act 1956, and no second revision, lay against such an order. Accordingly, he rejected the revision petition on the question of jurisdiction .
6. Aggrieved by the rejection of their revision petition, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed Writ Petition No. 601/R of 1965 for the removal of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner's order, dated 23- 1-1965 and the orders passed by the other subordinate authorities. They claimed that forms M.G.R., were, duly filed by them, within time and some instalments also paid towards the sale price of the land. The learned Single Judge upheld the order, dated 12-3-1962 whereby the order, dated 3-1- 1962 had been withdrawn by the D.S. & R.C. He found that there was no element of fraud in the allotment held by the respondents. He further took the view that the order, dated 12-3-1962, was, set aside by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner in revision and the case remanded to the Deputy Settlement & Rehabilitation Commis sioner. He depreciated the post remand order of 1- 2-1963, passed by Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Cheema and maintained that it having been passed without hearing the respondents, was, violative of the principles of natural justice. As regards the order of Mr. Ata Mohi-ud-Din the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, of 19-11- 1963, in the opinion of the 'learned Single Judge, it was rendered without application of mind.
According to the learned Judge, the case was dealt with by Mr. Ata Mohi-ud-Din under Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956 and his order was subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner under subsection (4) of section 11 of the Act. He further observed that even if the proceeding, were, conducted under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement), Act 1958, the revision was competent from the order, dated 19-11-1963, under section 19 of the said Act. He thus, held that the learned Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner failed to exercise the jurisdiction vesting in him and directed that the respondents' revision petition would be treated as pending and disposed of afresh, after determination of all questions of facts raised before him. The order, dated 22-5-1969, of the learned Single Judge, accepting the respondents' writ petition, is, under challenge in this I.-C.A.
7. The legal representatives of respondent No. 2 are represented by a counsel whose name has been cited in the cause list but no one appears on their behalf. Notice was sent to respondent No. 3 by registered post. He is also absent. All of these respondents are proceeded against ex parte.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.
1. The record has also been perused. The record before us, does not indicate that while passing the orders, except the appellate order, dated 19-11-1963, the allottees were heard by the Tribunal below.
The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to dislodge the observations recorded by the learned Single Judge in this behalf. It has rightly been maintained that these orders offend the principle of natural justice and thus, cannot be sustained. As regards the order, dated 19-11-1963, it does not embody any reason whatsoever, for upholding the cancellation of the land from the names of the allottees and thus falls short of the essential requirements of a judicial or quasi- judicial order.
9. We, entirely agree with the learned Single Judge that Mr. Ata Mohi-ud-Din heard the appeal as Rehabilitation Commissioner and his order, is, amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation Commissioner under subsection (4) of section 11 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act.
Even otherwise if the case is considered to have been decided under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, section 19 thereof clearly provides a revision against the order passed in appeal. It being so, the learned Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner fell in error in rejecting the revision on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Indeed, he was possessed of such jurisdiction and his failure to decide the revision on merits, renders his order liable to be removed through judicial review.
10. Before parting with the case we may dispose of another objection of the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that Mst. Aisma died before the enforcement of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 and since her legal representatives were not brought on the record within the prescribed period of limitation, to the extent of the land falling to her share, the writ petition abated and, therefore, her legal representatives stand excluded from the field.
11. This argument has no merit. The appellant himself moved C.M. No. 4 of 1970 for substitution of Mst. Aisma by her legal representatives. In the C.M. application and the appellant's affidavit accompanying the same, her date of death is specifically mentioned as 1-2-1967. Her death certificate is also appended therewith. The appellant was thus, well aware of her date of death. It is correct that about 10 years thereafter, he sought permission of the Court to amend the grounds of the appeal but such a request is misconceived. The writ petition was not directed against the order concerning the inheritance to the estate of Gul Muhammad deceased. The validity of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner's order, dated 23-1-1965, qua his failure to exercise jurisdiction, was, its subject-matter. This order is a unilateral in character and even Hussain Bakhsh alone could have assailed it competently. The removal of this illegal order, shall enure for the benefit of the legal representatives of respondent No. 2 as well.
12. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any substance in this appeal, which is dismissed with costs. In pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge, the case shall be heard by an officer nominated under section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, and disposed of expeditiously.