1. ' This is a petition by one of the legal heirs of Haji Muhammad Ismail who was a claimant for agricultural land and asks' for writ of certiori to quash the order, dated 1-4-1981 passed by the respondent No,1 whereby he rejected the application, dated 12-11-1980 filed by the petitioner and the respondents Nos.5 to 11.
2. ' The facts giving rise to the filing of the above petition are that Haji Muhammad Ismail was a claimant for agricultural land towards his claim on 11-2-1971 and 15-7-1971, he was allotted an area of (1-24 Acres plus 0.32), that is 2 Acres and 16 Ghuntas, out of survey No,146 measuring 3 Acres 13 Ghuntas as well as 1-39 1/2 Acres for Surveys Nos.231 and 232 in Deh Ma1h. Tappokonker Taulka and District Karachi. It is the case of the petitioner that by means of order, dated 3-3-1971 and 21-7-1971, the said land was mutated in the record of rights in the name of the said Haji Muhammad Ismail and further by an order, dated 3-8-1971 evacuee and non-evacuee shares jointly held by Muslims and Hindus evacuee was partitioned. The evacuee share allotted to Haji Muhammad Ismail was shown in the blue colour while Muslim share in red colour in so much as separate Survey No,657 was assigned to the Muslims. Similarly on 8-4-1969 Haji Muhammad Ismail was also allotted an area of 3 Acres and 38 Ghuntas out of Survey No,147 measuring 5 Acres 19 Ghuntas in Deh Malh, Tappokonker Taulka and District Karachi. By means of order, dated 31-8-1969 the said land was also mutated in the record of rights in the name of said Haji Muhammad Ismail and by means of order, dated 22-7-1969, evacuee and non-evacuee shares jointly held, by Muslims and Hindus evacuees was partitioned. The evacuee share allotted to Haji Muhammad Ismail was shown in the blue colour while Muslims shares in red colour, in the sketch as a separate Survey No,651 was assigned to the Muslims share. After the death of Haji Muhammad Ismail, the names of the petitioner and the respondents 5 to 11 were mutated in the record of rights in respect of the said land.
3. ' It is the case of the petitioner that in the settlement record as well as revenue record one Siddique son of Haji Noor Muhammad was shown to be in possession of Surveys Nos.146 and 147 allotted to late Haji Muhammad Ismail. The petitioner and other co-owners several times asked him to vacate the same and hand over the vacant and peaceful, possession thereof to them but he failed to do so and on the contrary started cutting trees damaging and wasting the property of the petitioner and respondents 5 to 11. The petitioner and the other co-owners accordingly filed Suit No,2865 of 1978 and Suit No,2866 of 1978 for possession of the said land against the respondent. The respondent No,4 contested both the suits and he also filed an application for rejection of plaints. By order, dated 27-7-1980, the plaints were rejected and the petitioner and respondents Nos.5 to 11 filed two appeals against the said order and the appeals are pending before the Second Additional District Judge, Karachi.
4. ' It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent No,4 and his father respondent No,3 have joined hands in order to harass, the petitioner and other legal heirs. They filed Suit No,937/80 and Suit No,938/80. The respondent No,3 addressed an application to the respondent No,2 alleging to be in possession of the said survey number praying therein to investigate the case of fraud and pass orders for cancellation of the area. The respondent No,2 forwarded the said application to respondent No,1. The respondent No,1 issued show-cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner and the' other legal representatives filed objections. It is the case of the petitioner that he filed Constitutional Petition No,9/81. This Court passed an order on 19-2-1981. It is advantageous to reproduce the relevant portion of the order which reads as under.
5. "After careful consideration the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that it would be appropriate for the respondent No,1 to decide the point involved in the matter pointed out by the petitioner as well as respondents 5 to 11 in their application, dated 12th November, 1980 after notice to the parties. The respondent No,1 is accordingly directed to dispose of the application in question which involves the point of jurisdiction dependent only upon the finding of the proceedings in respect of the disputed Survey numbers were, pending at the time of the repeal of the said Act."
6. ' It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No,1 by his order, dated 1-4-1981 rejected the application, dated 12-11-1980 filed by the petitioner as well as respondents Nos.5 to .11 and held that the application for cancellation of the excess allotment made in favour of the petitioner and respondents 5 to 11 was pending since before June, 1974 and as such he had jurisdiction to entertain the main application. The petitioner being aggrieved against the impugned order has filed the present petition.
7. ' In support of the petition. Mr. M.G. Dastgir, Advocate has contended that the respondent No,1 has not complied with the directions of this Court.
8. ' On the other hand Mr. Abdul Sattar learned counsel for the respondents Nos,.3 and 4 has submitted that this is a fit case which has to be remanded for disposal in accordance with law.
9. ' Mr. Mir Raza Hussain, learned counsel for the respondents 5 to 11 has also supported the learned counsel for the petitioner.
10. ' Learned Additional Advocate-General Abdul Sattar Sheikh, has also submitted that the case be remanded to the respondent No,1 for disposal as the respondent has not complied with the directions of this Court.
11. ' It is an admitted position that the Petition No,9 of 1981 filed by the petitioner came up for hearing on 19-2-1981, before the learned Single Bench of this Court and it was contended before him that application challenging jurisdiction of respondent No,1 was made before him but he declined to exercise his jurisdiction vested in him and instead orally declared that he would decide the point with the main case which is illegal.
12. It is an admitted' position that the learned Single Judge directed the respondent No,1 to decide the point involved in the matter as pointed out by the petitioner as well as the respondents 5 to 11 in their application, dated 12-11-1980 after notice to the parties. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the respondent No,1 has based his decision on the basis of Haji Gul Muhammad's application, dated 16-8-1971.
13. ' The respondent No,1 has completely disregarded the abovementioned directions. He has completely ignored the directions of this court.
14. ' Accordingly this petition is allowed. As a result a writ will be issued to the respondent No,1 directing him to re-consider the case in the light of the observations contained in the order, dated 19-2-1981 and dispose of the case in accordance with law after notice to the parties within four months from the date of this judgment. In the circumstances, of the case, the parties will bear their own costs.
15. ' The above are the reasons for my short order, dated 1-10-1986 accepting the above petition on conclusion of the arguments.