1. ' I propose to dispose of two Constitutional Petitions No,163 of 1976 and No,204 of 1976 by this order, as they arise out of the same order. These petitions have arisen in the following circumstances:- ' Agricultural lands, bearing Survey Nos.91 (9.11), 303 (7.30), 311 (7.36) and 301/A (2.24), totalling in all 27 Acres and 24 Ghuntas in Deh Saindad, Taluka Matli, District Hyderabad, and Survey Nos.310 (6.3), 314 (6.33), 318 (7.13) and 301/A (5.28) totalling 25 Acres and 27 Ghuntas in the same Deh, were originally allotted, alongwith several other pieces of agricultural land to one Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali in satisfaction of his claim on the basis of an entitlement certificate issued from the Central Record Office. The entitlement certificate issued in favour of Nawab Syed Raunaq All was, later on, cancelled in the year 1963, by the Officer on Special Duty, Lahore pursuant to notification, dated 25- 9-1959, issued by the Central Government. The order of the Officer on Special Duty, cancelling the entitlement certificate of Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali, was challenged by him in a Writ Petition in the then High Court of West Pakistan, but the petition was dismissed on 10-6-1964. Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali then preferred a petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court, which was accepted, the order of the High Court was set aside, and the case was remanded back for re-verification of the claim of Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali in the light of the observation of the Supreme Court in the case. The judgment in the case of Nawab Syed Raunaq All etc. v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others is reported in PLD 1973 Supreme Court 236. It appears that, while the above proceedings were going on, the lands mentioned above were allotted under the provisions of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, to claimants Mirza Sajid Hussain and Mirza Nadir Hussain on 3-10-1964. These claimants, after obtaining possession of the land in the year 1966 and getting their names entered in the record of rights on the basis of clearance certificate issued in their respective favour, sold these lands by a registered sale-deed in the year 1973 in favour of the petitioners in Petition No, C.P.163 of 1976. After the judgment of Supreme Court on the petition of Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali, referred to above, the case was taken up by the Authorised Officer, Mr.Muhammad. Akhlaq Khan, and, by order, dated 22- 5-1975, he held that the verification, order of the claim in favour of Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali, as originally passed by the Deputy Claims Commissioner called for no interference, and he accordingly restored the claim of Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali. It may be mentioned here that, before Mr.Muhammad Akhlaq Khan, a prayer was made for .Cancellation of the re-allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner in Petition No,204 of 1976, but he refused to interfere with the said preceedings on the ground that he had no jurisdiction in the matter. It appears that, 'after the order of Mr.Muhammad Akhlaq Khan, dated 22-5-1976, respondents 4 to 8, who were the purchasers of the land from Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali, moved an application before the Additional Member, Board of Revenue II, Sind, somewhere in 1976 for cancellation of the allotment of the same land made in favour of the petitioners in Petition No,204 of 1976. The learned Additional Member, Board of Revenue, sent the application moved before him to Mr. Muhammad Akhlaq Khan, who was the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Industries) for disposal according to law.. Mr.Muhammad Akhlaq Khan, on 18th of May, 1976 passed the impugned order, and held that the subsequent allotment order made in favour of the petitioners in Petition No, 204 of 1976 was a nullity, as it was passed during the pendency of the case of Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali with regard to re-verification of his claim. The order, dated 18-5-1976, is challenged in' the abovementioned two petitions, and Mr,Maroof Ali Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before me. It is firstly contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners in the above petition were not given any notice of the proceedings by Mr.Muhammad Akhlaq Khan before passing the impugned order, dated 18-5-1976, nd, as such, the order is a nullity in the eye of law. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by Mr.Muhammad Akhlaq Khan on 18-5-1976, after it was made over to him by the Additional Member, Board of Revenue, was an order wholly without jurisdiction, as, under the Notification, dated 24th of December, 1974, Mr.Muhammad Akhlaq Khan was appointed as a Notified Officer under subsection
(2) of section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance 1974, only to deal with cases of appeal, or, revision under the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act 1958, Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act 1956, Scrutiny of Claims (Evacuee Property) Regulation 1961, Pakistan Rehabilitation Act 1956, and Recovery of Price of the Evacuee Property and Public Dues Regulation, 1971. It is contended that, in so far as the cases remanded by the High Court, or, the Supreme Court, or, those pending on the date of enforcement of the aforesaid Ordinance, the Notified Officer in respect of cases arising under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, was the Divisional Commissioners concerned. The above two contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not without force. In paragraph 18 of Petition No,163 of 1976, and in paragraph 6 of Petition No 204 of 1976, the petitioners have specifically alleged that the order of respondent No,1, dated 18-5-1976, was passed without hearing them and they had no knowledge of its pendency, and these specific averments of the petitioner have not been controverted by the respondent. From a reading of the impugned order, dated 18-5- 1976, it also does not appear that any notice was given to the present petitioners before passing the impugned order. Apart from it, the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not without substance. The learned counsel has placed before me the original Gazette Notification, dated 24th of December, 1974, published in the Sind Government Gazette, dated 13th of March, 1975 which is as follows:- "No,SCK/74-2048.--In exercise of the Powers conferred by subsection (2) of Section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974 (XV of 1974) the proceedings under the (1) Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act 1956 (III of 1956), (2) the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act 1956 (XLII of 1956), (3) the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 (XXVIII of 1958), (4) the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 (XLVII of 1958), (5) the Scrutiny of Claims (Evacuee Property) Regulation 1961 (M L R 89 of 1961) and (6) The Recovery of price of the Evacuee Property and Public Dues Regulation, 1971 (M L R 87 of 1971) which may be pending before the authorities appointed thereunder, immediately before the repeal of these Acts and Regulations by virtue of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Law (Repeal)
2. Ordinance, 1974 (XV of 1974) and all cases decided by the Supreme Court or a High Court after such repeal which may be remanded to any such authority for disposal in accordance with the provision of the repealed Act or Regulation and Instructions, Schemes and Rules made thereunder to the officers named below in respect of cases noted against each:-
(1) Mr.S.Wasim Hamid Riavi, Cases of Revision under Settlement Commissioner Sind (1) the Displaced Persons (Additional Settlement (Compensation and Reha- Commissioner with powers of bilitation) Act, 1958 Settlement Commissioner)
(2) Registration of Claims Control Settlement Cell at Karachi. (Displaced Persons) Act 1956
(2) Scrutiny of Claims (Evacuee Property) Regulation, 1961
(3) Pakistan Rehabilitation Act 1956 and Recovery of Evacuee Property and Public Dues Regulation, 1971.
3. Mr.Ahmad Masud Alam, Chief Accounts Officer and ex officio Settlement Commis- sioner Central Settlement Cell at Karachi. -do- Mr. Muhammad Akhlaque Khan, Deputy Settlement Commissioner with powers of -do- Additional Settlement Com- missioner, Central Settlement Cell at Hyderabad.
4. Mr.A.J. Haidri, Deputy Settlement Commissioner with powers. Of Additional Settle- ment Commissioner at -do- Sukkur.
5. All Deputy Settlement Com- Cases pending in the missioners including Assis- original jurisdiction under tant Accounts Officers with the Displaced Persons ex officio powers of Deputy (Compensation and Reha- Settlement Commissioner in the District and Central Settlement Cells.
(2) Mr. Ansar Hussain, Deputy Settlement Commissioner Hyderabad with ex-officio powers of Deputy Custodian Evacuee Property.
6. Mr. Iqbal Ahmad Bukhari, Assistant Accounts Officer ex-officio powers of Deputy Settlement Commissioner and bilitation) Act, 1958, Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act 1956, and Recovery of Price of Evacuee Property and Public Dues Regulations, 1971.
7. Cases of application under section 20, 22 or 14 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property)
8. Act 1957 in original jurisdiction.
9. Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Property at Nawabshah.
(8) All Divisional Commissioners.
(9) All Deputy Commissioners All Assistant Commissioners/ Additional Deputy Commissioners. - do- Cases of Revision and Appeals under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956.
10. Cases under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958.
11. Cases of original jurisdiction under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 or Pakistan Rehabilitation Act 1959: ' Provided that the Additional Member, Board of Revenue (Incharge Settlement Cell) will be authorised to transfer cases mentioned at Serial No,8 from any of the Divisional Commissioner to any other Commissioner, and cases mentioned at Serial No,9 to any from Deputy Commissioner in the interest of justice and/or administration: ' Provided that Mr.S.Wasim Hamid Rizvi, Settlement Commissioner Sind will be authorised to transfer cases to the officers mentioned at Serial Nos. 2 to 7 or recall the same to his own file for disposal or transfer to other officers mentioned at Serial Nos.2 to 7 having relevant ex officio powers under the relevant repealed Act, in the interest of justice and/or administration: ' Provided further that the concerned Commissioners will be authorised to transfer a case from any officer mentioned at Serial No,10 to any other Additional Deputy Commissioner/ Assistant Commissioner in the interest of justice and/or administration. O.M. QARNI ' Additional Member Board of Revenue/Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, Government of Sind."
12. A reading of the above Notification will clearly show that the respondent No,1 was not at all authorised, as a Notified Officer, to deal with the cases arising under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, which were to be dealt with under the above Notification by the Divisional Commissioners concerned. Apart from it, under subsection (4) of section 2 of Act XIV of 1975, a final order passed under section 2(3) by a Notified Officer is to be executed by the Board of Revenue of the Province in accordance with the provisions of the repealed Act, or, Regulation. There is nothing in Act XIV of 1975, which authorised the Board of Revenue to transfer a pending case before it to an officer, who is not notified as an authorised officer under subsection (2) of section 2 of the Act. I am, therefore, of the view that Mr. Muhammad Akhlaque Khan was not competent to pass the order, dated 18-5-1976, as neither he was a Notified Officer within the meaning of section 2 (2) of Act XIV of 1975, in respect of the cases arising under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, nor the assignment of the case to him by the Board of Revenue was authorised under any provisions of Act XIV of 1975. I accordingly allow these petitions and declare the order passed by Mr.Muhammad Akhlaque Khan as without lawful authority. The effect of the order will be that the application moved by respondents 4 to 8 before the Member of. Board of Revenue shall be deemed to be pending, which could be disposed of in accordance With law. There will be no order as to costs.