1. ' The petitioners who were displaced persons have migrated from India, were issued an entitlement certificate on form MR-V, dated 9-10-1979 for 3173 P.I. Units of land by the Central Record Office, Lahore. These units were to be settled either by allotment of land or cash compensation to the petitioners under section 14 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. While the case of the petitioners was still pending for further action, the aforesaid Act was repealed by the Evapuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 (Act XIV of 1975). The petitioners sent an application through their Advocate Mr.Muhammad Najibullah Khan to the third respondent for further action as provided in section 14 of the Act of 1958,suit their request was turned down by the respondent vide his order, dated 12-2-1980, as according to him the land could not be allotted to the petitioners after 1-7-1974 from which date Act XIV of 1975 came into force.
2. ' I have heard Mr.Muhammad Najibullah Khan learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Syed Inayat Ali, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. It was pointed out by Mr.Syed Inayat Ali that the respondent No.1 had no concern at present with the case. However, as far as the respondents Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, none has appeared on their behalf nor any counter-affidavit has been filed by them.
3. ' The sole ground urged by Mr.Najibullah Khan is that undoubtedly, the third respondent was competent to act under section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons (Repeal) Act, 1975 (Act XIV of 1975) as the proceedings before him were pending proceedings and consequently it tantamounted to refusal on the part of the third respondent to exercise jurisdiction vesting in him under the law.
4. A bare reading of section 2(2) of Act XIV of 1975 leaves no doubt that proceedings which are pending before the Settlement Authorities or which have been received on remand from the Supreme Court or a High Court can be dealt with by the Officer appointed under section 2(2) in that behalf, There also appears to be no doubt that what was requested by the petitioner was that further action should be taken in case after revised entitlement certificate on form MR-V had been issued in favour of the petitioners, which required to be proceeded further. After issuance of the revised certificate in favour of the petitioners, the proceedings in respect of the allotment of land could not have been regarded as concluded by the respondent No.3 as something still required to be done in respect thereof. Such proceedings clearly became pending proceedings, as contemplated by section 2(2) of Act, XIV of 1975 after revised entitlement certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner. Consequently the refusal by the respondent No.3 to act further in the matter was not warranted by law as he was under obligation to take further action in the matter.
5. The order impugned, therefore, clearly appears to be without lawful authority.
6. ' For the foregoing reasons this petition is allowed and the case is remanded to the respondent No.3, for taking further action in accordance with law. The parties are left to bear their own costs.