' This constitution petition is directed against the order dated 3-1-1977 passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Mianwali. The dispute in this petition relates to evacuee House No, 104-105 situated in village Piplan Pakka Tehsil and District Mianwali, the disposal of which was governed before the repeal of Evacuee Laws by Settlement Scheme No, VII framed under Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The contestants for the house were Amir Abdullah Khan petitioner, Abdul Hameed and Rao Musarrat Ali. The request of the petitioner for transfer of the house was refused ultimately vide orders dated 25-7-1968 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) with powers of Settlement Commissioner (Lands) and under these orders, so confirmed in revision, the house in question was to be disposed of through auction. In the proceedings taken by Abdul Hameed, the other contestant, the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sargodha Division vide order dated 9-8-1968 remanded the case for fresh disposal. The learned Settlement Commissioner accepted the contention of the said petitioner that under the Settlement Scheme No, VII the matter of transfer of the house was to be dealt with by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and not by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. As the order of the Settlement Commissioner went against the petitioner, he filed Writ Petition No, 311/R of 1971 to challenge the same, but the constitution petition was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 22-5-1975. The matter was agitated before the Supreme Court by filing a petition for special leave to appeal and the operative part of the order dated 22-7-1975 passed by the Supreme Court reads as under:- "The position as it finally stands, therefore, is that no previous order is in the field and the matter has to be decided afresh to determine the eligibility of respondent No,2 in accordance with Settlement Scheme No, VII as revised. We feel that the ends of justice would be fully met if the claim of the petitioner is also examined alongwith that of respondent No, 2 in accordance with law. It is directed accordingly. With these observations, the petition is dismissed."
' The matter of disposal of the house in dispute was taken up on remand by Mr. Shahid Rafiq, Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner (L) Rawalpindi, who vide impugned order dated 3-1-1977 held that the entitlement of each party is deficient and ordered that the house in dispute be diposed of in a public auction in the manner prescribed in the Revised Settlement Scheme No, VII. This order is under challenge now in the constitution petition on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner having not been notified, had no jurisdiction to dispose of the remand case.
2. Alongwith the parawise comments submitted by the Department, Notification dated 14-11-1974 published in the official Gazette of 16-11-1974 was relied upon. Learned legal Advisor of the Department states that the Assistant Commissioner has been notified as the notified Officer as appears from Serial No, 7 of this notification and, as such, the impugned order was passed with jurisdiction. A perusal of this Notification shows that the Assistant Commissioners have been appointed as Notified Officers in respect of the proceedings pending before Deputy Settlement Commissioners. The procedings after remand under the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 9-8-1968 in the case of Abdul Hameed were to be dealt with by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and not by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, as in the Revised Settlement Scheme No, VII only an Assistant Settlement Commissioner was to deal with the case of transfer of houses of the value of less than Rs,10,000 and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was the Appellant Authority for such houses. This Notification as such is not relevant. No other Notification declaring Assistant Commissioner as Notified Office for the purposes of proceedings pending before the Assistant Settlement Commissioner has been produced.
3. The net result, therefore, is that the learned Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction whatsoever to deal with the remand case. There is, therefore, no escape but to declare the impugned order as having been passed without lawful authority. The case remanded by the Settlement Commissioner under orders dated 9-8-1968 in which proceedings the petitioner was allowed to be associated by the orders of the Supreme Court shall be deemed to be still pending and shall b disposed of by competent Notified Officer in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. There will, however, be no order as to costs.