1. ' This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is directed against notice, dated 26-11-1979, issued by the Mukhtiarkar, Dadu, directing the petitioner to appear before the Deputy Commissioner in connection with an application filed before him in respect of land, bearing Survey No.116/8, Deh Markhapur. The petition has arisen in the following circumstances:- ' Agricultural land, bearing Survey No.116/8, Deh Markhapur, District Dadu, was permanently allotted to a claimant, Mst. Sakina Khatoon, in the year 1963 under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. It is asserted in the petition that the said claimant was in peaceful possession of the land, and, after having paid the rehabilitation fee on 3-11-1973, her name was entered in the record-of-rights as holder of the above land. The present petitioner, through a registered sale-deed, dated 20th November, 1977, purchased the land from the claimant, Mst.
2. Sakina Khatoon. His name was entered in the record-of-rights on 9-1-1978, on the basis of the registered sale-deed in his favour. It appears that respondent No.6 moved an application for self as well as on behalf of respondents 1 to 5 before the Deputy Commissioner, alleging that the allotment of Survey No.116/8, Deh Markhapur in favour of the claimant, Mst. Sakina Khatoon, was fraudulent, and accordingly it was requested that an enquiry be made for cancellation of the mutation in the record-of-rights. On the basis of the above application, the impugned notice, dated 26-11-1979, was issued to the petitioner, directing him to appear on 28-11-1979.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to issue the aforesaid notice, as the land was allotted to Mst. Sakina Khatoon as a claimant under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and, after the repeal of the said law by Ordinance, XV of 1974, which came into effect from 1-7-1974, there was no jurisdiction left either in the Revenue Authorities, or, in the Settlement Authorities to reopen the cases, which were past and closed. It is accordingly contended by the learned counsel that the issuance of the notice by the Deputy Commissioner, in these circumstances, to examine the validity of a transfer made under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act was coram non judice and wholly without jurisdiction. The argument of the learned counsel is well-founded. Under Ordinance, XV of 1974, which came into effect from 1st July, 1974, and which later on became -Act, XIV of 1975, only these proceedings were saved, which were pending on the date of coming into enforcement of the Ordinance, XV, namely, 1-7-1974, or these cases could be dealt with under the repealed Act, which were remanded back by the High Court, or, the Supreme Court in the proceedings, which were pending on the date, namely, 1-7-1974, in these Courts. Apart from it, after the repeal of the evecuee laws under Act XV of 1975, only a notified officer was competent to dispos of the proceedings, which were saved under the aforesaid Act. In the present case, it is absolutely clear both from the petition as well a from counter-affidavit of the respondents that the proceedings wer initiated by respondent No.1 on the basis of an application, which wa filed by respondent No.6 on 25th of November, 1979. On that date, the Deputy Commissioner !Fad no jurisdiction at all to either entertain, or, decide the said application, as the case was neither pending on 1-7-1974, namely, the date on which Ordinance, XV of 1974 was enforced, nor it was a, case, which was remanded back after the aforesaid dat by the High Court, or, the Supreme Court. The proceedings initiate by the impugned notice were wholly coram non judice, and I, accordingly, accept this petition, and declare the notice, dated 26-11-1979, issue by respondent No.1, as wholly without jurisdiction. As the respondent have not appeared and contested the petition, there will be no orde as to costs.