1. ' Through this writ petition under Article 9 of the P. C. O. Read with Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 Shad Muhammad and three others seek declaration to the effect that the impugned order of respondent No, 1 namely Settlement Commissioner Peshawar Division, Peshawar, dated 15-12-1984 and that of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) respondent No, 3 dated 9-5-1978 are illegal and of no legal effect. Prayer has also been made for issuance of direction to respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to act in accordance with law.
2. ' Facts giving rise to this writ petition, briefly stated, are that the land in dispute was originally allotted to Muhammad Latif respondent No, 4, a refugee from Jammu and Kashmir, temporarily for maintenance in the year 1953. It is alleged, he made an application on 25-5-1970 to the Department supported by as affidavit that the land' be cancelled from him.Accordingly after the cancellation of his allotment it was permanently attotted to Fazal Din and Ghulam Muhammad respondents 5 and 6 herein in lieu of their verified claims. One Faridoon son of Asghar (not party to this petition) brought a civil suit against Muhammad Latif and others for declaration and in the alternative for specific performance of an agreement of sale made in his favour for the sale consideration of Rs, 29,000. Muhammad Latif however in his written statement in that suit denied the execution of the agreement of sale in favour of Faridoon and further stated that the land previously allotted to him has since been cancelled from his name therefore, the suit for specific performance was incompetent. Faced with this situation Faridoon withdrew his suit.
3. ' It was on the repeal of the Evacuee Laws by the Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act of 1975 wherein provision was made that the land in possession of Jammu and Kashmir Refugees can be sold to them on payment of appropriate sale consideration. Taking advantage of this provision Faridoon made an application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) in the year 1977 alleging that Muhammad Latif being allottee of the land is entitled to its transfer by sale. Case of double allotment was also set up. According to him, the allotment made in favour of Muhammad Latif was never cancelled and that the subsequent allotment in favour of Fazal Din and Ghulam Muhammad was illegal, unwarranted and void ab initio. He also made another application under Scheme II framed under the Repealing Act for transfer of the land to him he being in possession of it.
4. ' Without notice to the petitioners who were admittedly the purchasers of the suit land from Fazal Din and others the subsequent agottees, through a registered sale-deed which had been given effect to in the revenue record through mutations from time to time, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) vide his order, dated 9-5-1978 cancelled the allotment of land from Fazal Din and others. The petitioners who are the purchasers from the subsequent allottees alongwith their vendors feeling aggrieved by the order filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner Mardan who vide his order dated 24.4-1983 accepted the same, set aside the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner Mardan, dated 9-5-1978 on the ground that it was neither a speaking order nor had he applied his own mind to the facts of the case and remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner Mardan to enquire into the matter and to pass a judicial order in accordance with law. This time the aforesaid order of remand was challenged by Muhammad Latif respondent No, 4 in revision before the Settlement Commissioner (Lands)
5. Peshawar who vide his order, dated 15-12-1984, accepted the revision petition set aside the .Order of Additional Settlement Commissioner Mardan, dated 24-4-1983 and restored that of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Mardan, dated 9-5-1978. He based his order on the ground that by the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Amendment Act No, IV of 1973 section 18 was deleted hence no appeal was competent before the Additional Settlement Commissioner, he therefore, had no jurisdiction to remand the case. In this background of the dispute the petitioners have come to this Court through the present writ petition.
6. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length and record of the case perused. It may be pointed out that there are certain important questions of fact raised in this writ petition which are controversial on the face of the record and which require determination by the Tribunal who is competent to adjudicate in the matter. These are :-
(1) Whether the allotment made in favour of Muhammad Latif was cancelled by the competent authority?
(2) Whether the cancellation order was based on the application made by Muhammad Latif and the statement made by him before the competent authority.
(3) Whether the allotment made in favour of Fazal Din and others was competently passed and they validly sold the property in favour of the petitioners herein ?
(4) Whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had the jurisdiction to entertain the application of Faridoon after repeal of the Evacuee Law ?
7. As far as the orders impugned in this writ petition are concerned these are liable to be declared illegal and of no legal effect being against the principles of natural justice. Admittedly, no notice was served on the petitioners, though they were duty recorded as transferees of the suit land through registered sale-deed from the subsequent allottees at the time the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed the impugned order of cancellation. Even otherwise the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Mardan, dated 9-5-1978 on the face of it is illegal as he on the receipt of the report of the officials of the Department on the application of the respondent simply wrote "As suggested" without applying his mind to the facts of the case. The subsequent orders of the appellate and revisional authorities are also illegal and without jurisdiction on the same analogy. I, therefore, set aside the orders of respondents 1 to 3 and remand the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner Mardan ; the notified officer under the Repealing Act, to reconsider the application of Muhammad Latif and to hear the petitioners and other interested persons and thereafter, to give a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.