Mst. Gulzar Begum who had purchased land measuring 3 kanals 8 marlas out of Khasra No.6/1 situated in village Bara Pathar, Mian Mir, Lahore Cantonment, vide registered sale-deed dated 3-3- 1976 challenged in this constitutional petition the order dated 7-12-1978 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner whereby the P.T.D. Assertedly received by Riaz Ahmad from the Settlement Authorities was declared to be bogus and direction to move the Assistant Commissioner, Lahore to cancel the mutation sanctioned in favour of Riaz Ahmad the alleged transferee was made.
2. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner had purchased the land in question from one Muhammad Bashir son of Mian Muhammad Shah who had purchased 8 kanals of land of Khasra No.6/1, Bara Pathar, Mian Mir, Lahore Cantonment from Riaz Ahmad. The entries appearing on the copy of Khasra Imarti (Annexure `B') show that name of Riaz Ahmad as owner of 8 kanals of land of Khasra No.6, village Mian Mir was entered in place of Central Government vide Mutation No. 457 on the basis of P.T.D. No.2136 dated 22-4-1967 and this very land was then mutated vide Mutation No.460 dated 2-8--1971 in the name of Muhammad Bashir. The sale of 3 kanals 8 marlas made in favour of Mst. Gulzar Begum petitioner was incorporated in the revenue record vide Mutation No.541 dated 1-4-1976.
3. One Ch. Khair Din, it appears, submitted an application dated 17-10-1978 to the Settlement Commissioner with the request that the P.T.D. Allegedly obtained by Riaz Ahmad from the Settlement Authorities be declared bogus and a direction be made to cancel Mutation No.457 dated 15-7-1971 in favour of Riaz Ahmad to the concerned officer. This application was marked to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who after holding an inquiry submitted his report dated 3rd of December, 1978. In this inquiry Riaz Ahmad was summoned through registered A.D. Notice but as the said notice was received back unserved the notice was published in Daily Mashriq dated 14-11- 1978. Despite the publication of the notice in the press no one entered appearance and as such Riaz Ahmad was proceeded ex parte. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner reported that the page number of C.S.C.V. Register entered in the P.T.D. Allegedly issued to Riaz Ahmad in respect of land measuring 8 kanals of Khasra No.6 Mian Mir Lahore is 308 and page number of C.S.C.F. Register recorded therein is page 198 but examination of the original Registers and record shows that page 308 of C.S.C.V. Register pertains to property No.SE-XVI-29-S-2 Dharampura Lahore and not to Khasra No.5 Mian Mir. He further remarked that all the C.S.C.V. Registers pertaining to Mian Mir were examined but transfer of Khasra No.6 Mian Mir does not exist anywhere. It was added that page No.198 of all the C.S.C.F. Registers relating to the area in question were examined but no entry pertaining to Khasra No.6 Mian Mir exists. It was added that page No.198 of only one register i.e. Register No.2 was however found missing. Learned Settlement Commissioner on receiving the aforesaid report vide his note dated 7-12-1978 observed that the D.S.C./Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) is himself competent to declare such a document as a bogus document and further action can also be taken by him in the light of the evidence and in accordance with law.
Whereafter the D.S.C/Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) in view of the facts mentioned in the report dated 3-12-1978 declared the P.T.D. Assertedly obtained by Riaz Ahmad as bogus. He further directed that the draft of the letter put up for getting the said mutation cancelled from the Assistant Commissioner, Lahore. This was done vide order dated 7-12-1978. Pursuant to that mutation No.457 was reviewed and the name of the original owner i.e. The Government was recorded in the Revenue record. This was done in March 1979. It is pertinent to note that neither Riaz Ahmad the alleged allottee nor Muhammad Bashir the purchaser from Riaz Ahmad appear to have challenged either the order declaring the P.T.D. In question as bogus or the order whereby mutation No.457 was reviewed. Mst. Gulzar Begum purchaser from Muhammad Bashir, however, filed the present constitution petition challenging the declaration made by the D.S.C/ Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties).
4. This petition was admitted to hearing on 5-6-1979 and status quo .Was also ordered to be maintained. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner had impleaded the Settlement Commissioner and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner only as respondents. Ch. Khair Din on whose application the P.T.D. In question was declared to be bogus was, however, not impleaded. An application (C.M.1-81) under Order 1 rule 10 read with section 151 C.P.C. Was filed by Ch. Khair Din and various other persons for being impleaded as respondents to the petition on the plea that they are in occupation of the land in question, have raised their houses with huge expense and they have also applied for the transfer of land in question and as such are interested parties. This application was, however, dismissed by a learned Judge of this Court on 31-5--1981.
5. Another application (C.M. 1497-85) was repeated by the same petitioners as well as some others for being impleaded as respondents in the writ petition. This application was allowed by another learned Judge of this Court subject to all just exceptions vide order dated 14-6-1986. Learned counsel for the petitioner objected to the impleadment of respondents Nos.3 to 17 on the ground that similar request made earlier had remained unsuccessful. He however could not deny that these respondents are in possession of their respective portions of the land in question and any order passed in this petition is likely to affect their interest especially when the land in question forms part of the declared kachi abadi. In these circumstances the objection is overruled as the interest of justice will be well served by allowing opportunity of hearing to these respondents.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record by the learned counsel for the parties. A copy of the disputed P.T.D was not filed alongwith the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, today produced for perusal a copy of the P.T.D, allegedly issued to Riaz Ahmad. The same has been placed on record. This copy read with the report of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner would show that the document produced before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was exactly the same and the said P.T.D.
Was declared to be the bogus document. Learned counsel for Mst. Gulzar Begum contended: (i)that no jurisdiction vested in the D.S.C/Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) to cancel the P.T.D on the basis of the application submitted after repeal of the Evacuee Laws; and (ii)that in any case the said order of cancellation was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to Mst. Gulzar Begum, petitioner a bona fide purchaser for value.
Both these pleas are not available in the facts and circumstances of the case. This is not a case of cancellation of a P.T.D. This is a case where the Custodian of the settlement record has declared that as per the record of permanent transfer available with them the P.T.D. Being relied upon for claiming transfer of the property is bogus. Such a declaration can be made by the Administrator or Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) in view of the provisions contained in sections 3 and 4 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975. Section 4 reads as under:- "Disposal of residual work. All the work regarding documentation, both for urban and rural properties, recovery of outstanding transfer price, rent or mortgage money of such property already disposed of and discharge of miscellaneous liabilities out of these recoveries, which may remain pending immediately before the repeal of the aforesaid Acts and Regulations shall stand transferred to the Board of the Revenue of the; Province."
The word 'documentation as per the Webster's New World Dictionary means the supplying of documents or supporting references, the collecting, abstracting and coding of printed or written information for future reference. This documentation would necessarily show the properties which arc still available for disposal for the purposes of section 3 of the Act. If the record does not contain entries indicating transfer of a given property, the concerned Officer, to my mind, is competent to certify this position. The power of documentation would not, however, include the power to go into the validity of the orders passed by the competent authorities. In order to satisfy myself further I vainly looked for any circumstantial material which could establish the genuineness of the P.T.D.
Assertedly obtained by Riaz Ahmad. Had the transfer of the plot measuring 8 kanals of khasra No.6 been genuinely obtained by Riaz Ahmad the copies of the transfer application, transfer order, P.T.O.
Or the document showing payment of the transfer price through compensation book or through treasury challan could be produced. Even the original P.T.D. Obtained by Riaz Ahmad has not been produced. Muhammad Bashir should have obtained the original P.T.D. From Riaz Ahmad as he had assertedly purchased the entire land from him but said Muhammad Bashir has chosen not to challenge the impugned order. Even the petitioner has not impleaded him in these proceedings. In all these years the P.T.D. Allegedly issued to Riaz Ahmad has not seen the light of the day.
7. There is yet another important aspect of the matter. The entire khasra No.6 measuring 17 kanals 10 marlas and 65 sq.Ft. Alongwith other khasra numbers of Mian Mir, Lahore Cantonment have been declared katchi abadi vide notification dated 16-7-1985 and as per the survey list of this katchi abadi, Raja Pehlwan Khan husband of Mst. Gulzar Begum petitioner and her two sons are in possession of their respective three plots measuring in all 16 marlas approximately. The rest of the land is in possession of the other occupants. These C occupants on submission of their applications have been transferred respective plots and most of them have also deposited the price for receiving the proprietary rights. Neither the declaration of katchi abadi nor the grant of rights m the land in question to various persons was challenged by the petitioner. The plea that as the petitioner had obtained status quo order there was no need to challenge the aforenoted actions is without merit. The petitioner had submitted application (C.M.1-79) seeking suspension of the operation of the impugned order dated 7-12-1978. The order passed on 5-6-1979 was that status quo shall be maintained meanwhile. By then the mutation cancelling the mutation in favour of Riaz Ahmad and restoring the name of Government as owner had been sanctioned. The position thus obtaining at the time of passing the status quo order was that in the record it was the Government who was the owner of the land in question. Moreover, the order passed in the petition will be operative as against the parties to the petition and at that time the parties to the petition were the petitioner, the Settlement Commissioner and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner.
Neither the Provincial Government nor the respondents or other occupants were party to the petition. Respondents Nos.3 to 17 came to be impleaded on their own application vide order dated 14-6-1986. In these circumstances it was necessary for the petitioner to challenge the action of inclusion of the bind in the katchi abadi and its transfer to the respondents/ occupants.
8. For the reasons given above no case is made out for interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
M.Z.S./G-233/L.