1. ' This has come by way of reference by Special Judge, Karachi by his judgment, dated 31-10-1973 whereby he gave finding that interpolation subsequently has been made in the confirmation order passed by the Deputy Custodian in the year 1950 in favour of Mewa Ram who claimed to be the owner of the property, who is now dead, and-his widow has sold the property to the present owner.
2. ' I have already held in the connected case (Misc: Application No,16 of 1976) that after promulgation of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 I have no jurisdiction to entertain any reference. It is advantageous to reproduce section 2(2) of the aforesaid Act which reads as under:- "2(2). Upon the repeal of the aforesaid Acts and Regulations, all proceedings which immediately before such repeal, may be pending before the authorities appoilited thereunder shall stand transferred for final disposal to such officers as may be- notifies by the Provincial Government in the official Gazette and all cases-- decided by the Supreme Court or a High Court' after such repeal which would have been remanded to any such authority in the absence of such repeal shall be remanded to the officers notified as aforesaid."
3. ' From bare reading of the above provisions, it is apparent that the application could not be entertained by the undersigned whose appointment by Provincial Government is for disposal of pending proceedings in terms of subsection (2) of section 2 of the repealing _Act. In relation to cases under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957 under which only two types%of proceedings were contemplated which could be transferred and disposed of namely (i) all proceedings which before repeal of the enactment may be pending before the authorities appointed under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957; and (2) all cases decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court or High Court after such repeal which would have been remanded to any such authority in the absence of such repeal.
4. I am a notified officer for disposal of pending proceedings o by the Supreme Court or High Court.
5. The Misc: reference was made after the target date, the foundation for the assumption and exercise of jurisdiction was not laid. The latest dictum of the Hon'ble A Supreme Court is that even in matters of fraud, the designated authorities under the repealing Act have no jurisdiction to reopen the matters which are transaction past and closed. Reference may be mad to the case of Sher Afzal Khan and others v. Haji Razi Abdullah and others 1984 SCM R 228. It was observed: "We do not see how, after the repeal of these laws, the authorities under the new dispensation that came into being under the repealing statute and under the new scheme promulgated in 1976, could undertake an enquiry in order to review and reopen such past and closed transactions. Even a case of fraud could be enquired into or adjudicated upon provided jurisdiction to exercise such power survives the repeal. No such provision was pointed out by the learned counsel. The exercise of jurisdiction was, therefore, palpably coram non judice and wholly incompetent."
6. For the foregoing reasons I am of humble opinion that the reference is incompetent and no action can, therefore, be taken there by me. The reference is dismissed as incompetent.
7. Reference rejected.