' These are four connected writ petitions (W.P.No,896/R of 1978, W.P.332/R of 1979, W.P.22/R of 1979 and W.P.No,230/R of 1986), filed against the same impugned order of Notified Officer with the powers of Settlement Commissioner dated 28-4-1977.
2. On hehalf of the petitioners in each case it is being submitted that no opportunity of hearing was given to them before passing of the impugned orders adverse to them. Reliance in this behalf is being placed not only on the principle of natural justice but also on the provisos to sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. These provisos ordain that no order prejudicial to any person under the aforementioned sections shall be passed without giving to the person affected an opportunity of being heard which would include the right to defend. From the order of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Salam dated 8-11-1978 in the course of Writ Petition No,896/R of 1978 directed against the same impugned order dated 24-114978, in the report received from the respondent-department, it is admitted that the persons adversely affected by the order of Notified Officer was not given any opportunity of being heard. It is also being submitted that in respect of the same impugned order F.I.R. No,6 dated 24-3-1980, was got registered through the intervention of Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment, on the allegation that the impugned order was forged and fabricated document and did not even carry the signatures of the Notified Officer. Writ Petition No,1064 of 1984 was filed against the Anti-Corruption Establishment for registration of criminal case and for the prosecution being conducted in pursuance thereof which was dismissed on 26-3-1984 by his Lordship Mr. Justice Zia Mahmood Mirza.
3. Ch. Muhammad Rafiq Khan, Advocate, states that there was an I.C.A. Against that order which was later withdrawn and thus the order of the learned Single Judge became final. Learned counsel also submits that in a number of judgments of this Court regarding Mukhbari application involving multifariousness of causes, wherein strange set of persons were shown as mukhbars and similarly unconnected persons from the different Districts in the Province were joined as respondents on the basis of 8 omni-bus type of vague allegations involving land allotted in various districts have been held to be incompetent and outside the purview of law. On the point of locus standi for instituting mukhbari proceedings or for giving any benefit to mukhbars, reliance is being placed on the judgment by Mr. Justice Muhammad Afzal Lone in W.P.No,516/R of 1982 which was decided on 21-11- 1982. Relevant paragraph is as under:-- "It is evident from the available record that the mukhbari application was filed on behalf of a number of persons, who apparently did not have anything common in them. Similarly the particulars of the allotments of the land situate in various districts, in respect whereof complaint was filed, were not disclosed therein. Thus upon the facts of the case it cannot be said that the mukhbari application did not suffer from multifariousness of causes of action."
' To the same effect is the decision of Mr. Justice Gul Muhammad Khan. I have the word 'of learned counsel for the petitioners, Ch. Muhammad Rafique Khan, that I contributed to this view in one of the earlier decicions rendered by me involving similar features.
4. There is another legal lacunae to be found in these proceedings and that is that the mukhbari benefits have been conferred on persons without asking them to first prove that they were claimants and they had genuine unutilized claims available and that the mukhbari applications were filed before the repeal of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, with effect from 30-6-1974.
5. Mr. Alamgir, learned counsel states that Munir Akhtar c/o Abdul Rashid, is a dubious person who is involved in a large number of land fraud cases. This assertion has not been controverted from any side during the hearing.
6. It is well settled that this Court will not substitute itself for the tribunal below nor proceedings in constitutional jurisdiction are in continuation of the original proceedings. It will not be conducive to dispensation of justice that confusion remains ,confounded when the very existence of the impugned order as stated earlier is alleged to be based on forged, interpolated and fabricated documents. The other most material aspect of the matter is that the parties were not given the opportunity of being heard which is against the rules of natural justice. I, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and send the cases for decision afresh to the Member, Board of Revenue (S&R) for entrustment to a person of integrity who shall render just and fair decision after hearing all the parties and giving them an opportunity of hearing to substantiate their respective pleas. The mukhbari petition, speaking technically, will be deemed to be pending. Whether the mukhbari application was filed in time or smuggled after the repeal of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement)
Act, would be decided by the Notified Officer, after due inquiry and applying his conscious mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, scrutiny of the records and giving the parties an opportunity to substantiate their respective pleas. The very question whether mukhbari application and the decision of the Notified Officer are bogus and spurious documents, is the function of the Notified Officer to decide after inquiry in remand.
7. For all these reasons, writ petitions are accepted and the cases are remanded as already observed to be entrusted to a person of integrity for decision afresh in accordance with law. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.