' The facts giving rise to this Constitution petition arc that property No,B-II-S-5-10-B, Nankana Sahib, was auctioned by the Settlement Department on 31st December, 1964. The highest bid of Rs,13,500 offered by Ghulam Muhammad and Abdul Aziz the auction- purchasers was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 7th January, 1965. The auction-purchasers surrendered their rights in the property in question in favour of Nazir Ahmed, respondent No,1, vide agreement of association, dated 26th January, 1965. The auction price was paid through compensation book No,262785 Gojra-7149. Thereafter, Permanent Tranfer Deed, dated 7th May, 1965, was issued and obtained by Nazir Ahmed, who then sold the property in question to Ali Bakhsh and Dildar Muhammad petitioners vide registered sale-deed, dated 20th June, 1968. The property in question thus came to vest in the petitioners.
2. Nazir Ahmad respondent submitted an application which bears the date of 17th May, 1980, as per the office endorsement praying that notice be issued to him so that he may also deposit the transfer price in cash for issuance of the P.T.D. As the compensation book from which the transfer price had been adjusted was bogus one and another transferee who had also got the transfer price adjusted from the said compensation book had been allowed to pay the transfer price in cash. This application was disposed of by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide order, dated 31st May, 1980, para 2 of which, as it gives the reasons for the order, is being reproduced for ready reference:-- "2. As already stated the payment due against the shop was made out of a bogus C.B. And PTD was issued from this office it would be in the fitness of the things that the sanctity of PTD already issued is to be examined first. The fact that the C.B. Produced earlier was bogus stands proved from the application dated 17-5-1980 moved by Nazir Ahmad wherein it was frankly confessed that the C.B.
Was a bogus document. It is thus clear that the PTD already issued stands nowhere and it can be termed a document having no force. The PTD dated 7-5-1965 issued earlier in favour of Nazir Ahmad is hereby cancelled. As the payment has been made by Riaz Ahmad and he has stepped in through an agreement dated 29-5-1980 he is entitled to get the PTD of the shop in dispute. I therefore order that the Transfer Order be issued accordingly."
' It is pertinent to note that (a) Nazir Ahmad respondent in his application has not revealed that he had obtained a PTD already (b) the Deputy Settlement Commissioner after coming to know that PTD had already been issued to Nazir Ahmad, did not ask him to surrender that PTD, (c) the compensation book was being treated as bogus one in view of the admission made by Nazir Ahmad respondent in his application but no order declaring or treating the compensation book as bogus was in existence and (d) the admission of Nazir Ahmad was of no avail as it was not his compensation book and the person to whom this compenstion book pertained was not even heard before acting upon the admission of Nazir Ahmad.
3. Nazir Ahmad respondent before obtaining the order dated 31st May, 1980, allegedly executed another agreement of association with Riaz Ahmad, respondent No,2, who then paid the transfer price by surrendering another compensation book. It may be noted that this agreement of association with Riaz Ahmad is dated 29th May, 1980. Thus, the agreement of association was entered into even prior to the order, dated 31st May, 1980. The Settlement authorities again obliged the respondents by accepting the agreement of association, dated 29th May, 1980, and by issuing a Transfer Order in favour of Riaz Ahmad, respondent No,2.
4. The case of the petitioners is that they came to know of the order dated 31st May, 1980, when Riaz Ahmad filed an application for being impleaded as a petitioner in place of them in the eviction application filed by them against Muhammad Sharif, the occupant-tenant of the property in dispute. They thereafter filed the present Constitution petition assailing the order dated 31st May, 1980, the acceptance of the agreement of association and the issuance of Transfer Order in favour of Riaz Ahmed, respondent.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The case of respondents 1 and 2 is that Dildar Muhammad, one of the petitioners, had submitted an application, dated 29th September, 1973, before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner seeking a direction to Nazir Ahmad to return the sale price received under the registered sale-deed. This application was disposed of with the remarks that the applicant may seek judicial remedy from the Civil Court. On the basis of this application the objections raised are that the petitioners are estopped from claiming the shop in dispute as they had sought a direction for refund of the sale price and that on coming to know in Novermber, 1973, that the shop in dispute could be cancelled from the name of Nazir Ahmad they did not take any action to retain the same despite the holding of Panchayat in which Nazir Ahmad had requested the petitioners to safeguard their interest by making payment of transfer price to the Settlement Department as he himself was not financially in a position to pay the transfer price. In support of this version the respondents have submitted affidavits of Abdul Karim Firdaus, Ashfaq Ahmad, Mukhtar Ahmad, Rustam Ali and Malik Mumtaz Ahmad, Advocate. This version of the respondents has been controverted by the petitioners. Dildar Muhammad petitioner has also submitted an affidavit wherein he has altogether denied having submitted the application, dated 29th November, 1973. Ali Bakhsh petitioner has also submitted an affidavit alongwith affidavits of four Advocates, who have deposed that Milk Mumtaz Ahmad, advocate, admitted in their presence that he had signed the affidavits without reading the contents therof as he is a neighbour of Nazir Ahmad respondent.
6. I have gone through the affidavits of Abdul Karim Firdaus and others submitted by the respondents. These affidavits do not give the date when they had formed the Panchayat and had requested the petitioners to make the payment. It is also not explained as to how they requested the petitioners to pay the amount when admittedly Nazir Ahmad had received the sale price at the time of execution of the sale-deed in favour of the petitioners. Nazir Ahmad respondent cannot be believed as he had submitted an application dated 17-5-1980 by making false representation as well as by concealing material facts. In the application he neither disclosed that the P.T.D. Had been issued to him nor that he had already sold the property to the petitioners and as such he was left with no interest in the property in question. If at all he came to know that the compensation book out of which he had the transfer price was bogus one he should have paid the price in cash or asked the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to issue notice to the purchasers of the property i.e, the petitioners. Even the Deputy Settlement Commissioner did not consult the record and obliged the respondents by passing the order dated 31-5-1980. The admission of Nazir Ahmad that the compensation book deposited in the office through agreement of association was bogus could not be acted upon as it was not his own compensation book. As there was no judicial order treating or declaring the compensation book to be bogus, a notice to the holder of the book was in any case necessary. Be that as it may even in the year 1980, after six years of the repeal of the evacuee laws, the compensation book could not be treated to be bogus and as such the direction to pay the price again could not be made. Assuming that any power in law existed to treat the compensation book as bogus in the year 1980, or assuming that at any time before the repeal of the evacuee laws the compensation book had been treated or declared by a competent authority as bogus, though there is nothing on record to show this, still the P.T.D. Could not be cancelled and only the price could be recovered as arrears of land revenue in view of the provisions contained in para. 7 of Settlement Scheme No, VIII (see PLD 1973 Punjab Statute 256). All these factors would show that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed the obliging order for extraneous reasons as otherwise he in the law was not competent to declare the P. T. D. Already issued and in possession of the petitioners as inoperative in law. It may be noted, even at the cost of repetition that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner did not require Nazir Ahmad respondent, to surrender the P.T.D. Already, issued and obtained by him. Had he performed his official duty reasonably and honestly and demanded surrender of the P.T.D Nazir Ahmad respondent could not have concealed the sale of the property. As regards the plea of estoppel and laches raised by the respondents it is pertinent to note that Dildar Muhammad petitioner has disowned this application. If this application was really on record then the Deputy Settlement Commissioner must have noticed the same while passing the order dated 31-5-1980. Had this been on the record then he would have noticed that the petitioners had already purchased the property in question from Nazir Ahmad respondent and resultantly seen that Nazir Ahmad had no locus standi to move the application dated 17-5-1980.
Thus no occasion would have arisen for passing the said order dated 31-5-1980. Again if the application, dated 29th November, 1973, and the order passed thereon dated 2-12-1973 existed on record then the predecessor-in-office of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had already required the applicant to seek remedy from the Civil Court. Moreover, on the filing of this application the proceedings for recovering the transfer price of the property would have been initiated.
7. For all these reasons I am not prepared to act upon the so-called application dated 29-11-1973, as well as on the plea of the respondent that the petitioners were informed to pay the transfer price. Even otherwise the petitioners could not be asked to pay the price as admittedly Nazir Ahmad had received the sale consideration under the registered sale-deed. The net result of the above discussion is that the order dated 31-5-1980 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner is without lawful authority and hence is of no legal effect. Resultantly the order accepting the agreement of association and the Transfer Order issued to respondent No,2 are equally without lawful authority and ineffective in the eye of law. It is further declared that the P.T.D. Dated 7-5-1975 is valid, legal and operative in law and shall hold the field qua the parties and the property vests in the petitioners by virtue of sale-deed dated 20-6-1968. This petition thus stands accepted in the above terms. The respondents shall also pay the cost of the petitioners.