Falak Sher, J.-We propose to dispose of Inter Court Appeal Nos. 519 of 1980 and 149 of 1984 by this single judgement, since both the appeals have emerged out of the same judgment of a learned Single Judge and the same question of law is involved.
2. Brief facts are that one Shujat Ali son of Himayat Ali. a displaced person, had obtained allotment in various revenue estates of District Jhang against his verified claim. Against the same claim or its forged copy, allotments were also procured in the district Multan, Lahore, Rahim Yar Khan, Vehari, Sargodha, Gampbellpur, Banau and Sukkar.
These allotments were questioned ia as many as 13 applications under section 10/U of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, all of which were disposed of by the Settlement Commissioner with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab vide consolidated order dated 30-7-1976; holding that the above referred Shujat Ali had obtained allotment again st his verified claim in District Jhang alone and II other allotments procured under his said claim were not genuine This order was impugned, inter alia, in W.P Nos 1546/R-76 and 1254/8.-77, out of which, these Inter Court Appeals, respectively have arisen.
3. Before going into merits of the appeals, the learned counsel for the parties were required to address arguments as to maintainability of these appeals in view of the provisions enshrined in proviso to S. 3(2) of the Law Reform Ordinance, 1972 (Ordinance XI of 1972) as amended by Ordinance No. XXXIV of 1972 and Act VIII of 1972.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the order passed on 30-7-19 6 by the learned Settlement < omaiissioner with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissoner, Punjab in exercise of powers vested in him and^r section 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958, ires of which ere challenged in the constitutional petition, out of which these Inter Court Appeds have emerged, was not amenable to any appeal or revision : thus the proviso to S. 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 as amended is not attracted to the present case.
5 We are not impressed by the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants becai. Se the prohibition or bar as to maintainability ef Inter Court Appeal, contemplated by the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1V72 as amended, on account af appeal or revision is not directed against the order which is impugned in constitutional petition but against the original order, out of which the proceedings had emerged. This matter was thoroughly discussed and finally adjudged by a full beach of the Supreme Court of pakistan, in the case of Mst.
Karim Bibi and others v Hussain Bakhsh and others (PLD 1984 S.C, 344). The relevant passage is reproduced hereinbelow:- ''The test laid down by the Legislature in the proviso is that if the law applicable to the proceedings from which the Constitutional Petition arises provides for at least one appeal against the original order, then no appeal would be competent from the order of a Single Judge in the constitutional jurisdiction to a Bench of two or more Judges of the High t court. The crucial words a e the "Original Order " It is tear from the wording of the proviso that the requirement of the available- to of an appeal in the law applicable is not in relation to the impugned order in the constitutional petition, which may be the order passed by the lowest officer or authority in the hierarchy on an order passed by higher authorities in appeal, revision or review, if any. Provided in the relevant statute.
Therefore, the relevant order may not necessarily be the one which is under challenge but the test is whether the original order passed in the proceedings is subject to an appeal under the relevant law, irrespective of the fact whether the remedy of appeal so provided was availed of or not.
Apparently the meaning of the expression "original order" is the order with which the proceedings under the relevant statute commenced."
The same view was held in the case of Muhammad Abdullah v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Centre Lahore PLD 1985 S.C.
107. Thus enunciation of law by the Supreme Court was applied bv in other learned Division Bench of this Court in an unreported Inter Court Appeal No. 524 of 1980, titled as Muhammad Afzal Chaudhry, General Manager, Finance Pakistan automobile Corporation National Shipping Corporation Building Karadur v. Settlement Commissioner Lands and others.
6. In this view of the matter as the original order of allotment of land to Shujat Ali, was subject to appeal/revision, therefore, these Inter Court Appeals arc not m detainable and are incompetent as envisaged by the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 as amended; consequently, the same are dismissed; however, there shall be no orders as to costs.