1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C J.-- This appeal through leave of the Court, is directed against the order dated 25-4-1981 of the Lahore High Court; whereby the respondents' Constitutional Petition arising out of a land settlement case relating to evacuee property was disposed of in limine with such observation which allowed substantive relief to them.
2. ' It is one of rare cases where a departmental functionary in the Settlement hierarchy dealing with the evacuee property has taken the case and matter more seriously than usual practice of the Settlement Authorities. Ordinarily the private parties contesting the Settlement cases challenge the orders before the higher Courts mostly through Writ jurisdiction. In this case an Assistant Commissioner who is also a Deputy Settlement Commissioner Lands with powers of Additional Settlement Commissioner/Collector has challenged the order of the High Court passed in its Writ jurisdiction. Leave to appeal was granted on 17-7-1988. The relevant part of the leave granting order reads as follows:-- "Leave to appeal has been sought by the Settlement authorities against the disposal of a writ petition filed by the respondents side, with the effect that without "accepting" the petition, major relief has been allowed to them prima facie without jurisdiction.
3. ' After hearing the learned counsel, we feel that the "disposal" of the writ petition by the impugned order is prima facie not in accordance with the normal practice of the High Court, when dealing with questions of vital importance to the parties concerned. This petition accordingly is converted into appeal."
4. ' The impugned order passed by the High Court reads as follows:- "Mr. Zaheer Khan, Naib-Tehsildar has today shown the original verification order in respect of application No, 2247/12639/41, with regard to claim of Dil Bahar Khan son of Sher Bahadur Khan, Block No,74, Sector 5-F, New Karachi-36. This is shown to have been verified on 23rd April, 1973 for 7043 units. In this view of the matter the contention of the Assistant Commissioner that the claim is forged is not correct. The question whether allotment was ante-dated, may, however, be looked into. In case it is found that it was allotted any time before 1st July, 1974, the Assistant Commissioner shall have no jurisdiction to deal with the matter. This petition with this observation shall stand disposed of."
5. ' Both the learned counsel have taken us through the relevant facts and the material for purpose of the disposal of this appeal. Both the sides have definite positive grievances regarding the manner in which the Writ Petition in this case, which involved some complicated questions, both of fact and law, was disposed of. Learned counsel for the appellants amongst others raised the plea that a question of fact which was still to be enquired by the appellants in duly constituted proceedings, was finally decided by the High Court in limine in a summary manner on the production by Naib- Tehsildar, what is stated in the impugned order, to be an original verification order. He drew our attention that in reality it was not an original verification but a copy thereof. The question with regard to verification and/or correctness or genuineness of the copy/verification order, was to be the subject-matter of enquiry by the appellants but the High Court without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellants or any other concerned person gave a finding on the basis of the aforestated circumstance, that a claim was verified on 23-4-1973 for 7043 units. As argued all these questions were yet to be examined and determined by the appellants in a duly constituted enquiry. Similarly the finding that the claim was not forged has been attacked as ex parte without due opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. Further learned counsel argued that even if it be assumed that the allotment was made before 1-7-1974, the question whether or not the Assistant Commissioner would have no jurisdiction to deal with the matter, was such which could and should not have been determined without hearing the proper parties. Finally it was argued that there was no lawful disposal of the appeal.
6. ' Learned Counsel for the respondents while remaining unable to meet the aforenoticed points himself made grievance against the impugned order; namely, that although the respondents' side had also challenged the jurisdiction of the appellants to proceed with the case, the High Court has not touched this point and the Writ Petition seems to have been dismissed in this behalf. This, according to learned counsel, was without paying attention to the pleas raised from the respondents' side in this behalf.
7. 'After hearing both the learned counsel while being conscious that the normal rules and practice of the High Court in dealing with the Writ Petitions are not in strict sense applicable to the disposal of the Writ Petitions arising out of the Settlement cases yet the fact remains that the learned Judge in the High Court decided complicated questions of law and fact by the use of the expression `stand disposed of' without proper judgment and decision thereof. There is also grievance about lack of opportunity of hearing. Keeping all these facts and circumstance in view it is not possible to uphold the impugned order. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the same and remand the case to the High Court for fresh decision of the Writ Petition filed by the respondents' side. It shall be deemed to be pending in motion therein. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.