1. RAJA AFRAS1AB KHAN, J:- A piece of land measuring 4 kanals comprising Khasra No.5053/2991-Min of village Bhekhewal, District Lahore was auctioned by the Auction Committee on 14.3.1981. Rehmat Ali son of Aziz Din participated in the auction and his bid for a sum of Rs.12,800/- for the said land was accepted. The auction was confirmed by the Settlement Authority in favour of Rehmat Ali on 27.6.1981 vide Annexure A. An agreement of association, Annexure B was entered into between Rehmat Ali auction purchaser and the petitioner on 16.5.1988, thereby the auction purchaser surrendered his rights in the property in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners deposited the auction price in cash against receipt, Annexure C with the Settlement Department. Transfer Order was, accordingly issued in favour of the petitioners on 26-5-1988, vide Annexure D. During the implementation proceedings of the order of transfer, it came to light that the land in question had already been transferred and that it was not available for its auction. In the circumstances, the Authorities reported that in lieu of the land in dispute equivalent land measuring 4 Kanals comprising Khasra No.3031- Min in the same Revenue Estate may be allotted to the petitioners. It was accordingly, ordered by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (G)/D.S.C, on 29.5.1988 that the alternative land be given to the petitioners. In compliance thereof, revised Robkar, Annexure F was issued with a direction that the said land be transferred to the petitioners. In consequence, mutation No.10727, Annexure G was attested on 27.7.1988 in favour of the petitioners.
2. Again to the misfortune of the petitioners, it revealed that the land comprising in Khasra No.3031- Min, given to the petitioners had already been acquired by the Lahore Development authority for its inclusion in the Faisal Town Scheme. The petitioners approached the aforesaid Authority for exemption of the said land in their favour. However, it was directed that the petitioners should firstly get their title documents verified from the Verification Committee constituted by the Board of Revenue vide their memorandum dated 25.3.1989, Annexure T. The Verification Committee vide order dated 21.6.1990, Annexure 'K' held that the A.D.C.(G)/D.S.C. Had no authority to allot the alternate land to the petitioners in lieu of their earlier land. The petitioners have challenged the vires of the order dated 21.6.1990 passed by the Verification Committee through this Constitutional petition.
2. It is contended that the order dated 21.6.1990, Annexure 'K' passed by the Verification Committee is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the existence of the said Committee is not warranted by law on the subject. Respondent No.2 has sent written comments through Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, learned Advocate General Punjab which have been placed on record. In the written comments it has been conceded that Verification Committee has been constituted under the executive orders of the learned Member Board of Revenue (R)/Chief Settlement Commissioner and that it has no backing of any Statute. It may be recalled that the aforesaid comments were sent in reply to the questions posed by the learned Advocate General to the learned Member Board of Revenue, Punjab. The first question posed was whether the Verification, Committee has been formed in obedience to some law and whether the order dated 29.5.1988 passed by the A.D.C.(G)/D.S.C. Had obtained finality. It was further asked as to whether the said order was challenged before some competent court by the Department. Next question posed was as to what was the lawful authority of the Verification Committee, under which the operation of the order dated 29.5.1988 passed by the A.D.C.(G)/D.S.C.
3. Was withheld.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General at considerable length. Record of the case has also been gone through by me carefully.
4. Representative of the Settlement Department has also been heard by me. Admittedly, all the evacuee laws pertaining to the Displaced Persons were repealed as back as 1975 by means of promulgation of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. In other words, the Settlement Officers appointed thereunder have ceased to hold their offices in law.
5. Alternatively the Notified Officers have been appointed under section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. Again the jurisdiction of the Notified Officers so appointed is limited inasmuch as they could alone dispose of the pending cases. Pending cases have also been defined in the above Statute. In my view the matter entrusted to the Verification Committee was not a pending case within the meaning of law. It is, therefore, clear that no other cases, except the pending cases can be entertained and decided by the learned Notified Officers.
6. All the Settlement Officers, namely, Cheif Settlement Commissioner Deputy Settlement Commissioner had ceased to exist by operation of the law and have been replaced by the Notified Officers as mentioned above. It is conceded that the Verification Committee as constituted by the learned Member Board of Revenue had no legal backing. It is also conceded that it is not a pending case. This being so, order dated 21.6.1990, passed by the so-called Verification Committee was without jurisdiction and without lawful authority on the face of record. The said order, therefore, does not exist in law and being void can certainly be ignored for all practical purposes by the Authority before whom it is to be produced for implementation. It is indeed unfortunate that the general public is put to uncalled for inconvenience, harassment and expense by the Authorities while referring their cases to the Verification Committees for scrutiny without any legal justification.
7. The argument that this is being done in order to detect fraud and forgery in settlement cases has no legal basis whatsoever. It is well settled that fraud vitiates even the most spolemn proceedings.
8. Question of fraud shall always be open to scrutiny before the competent forums of law where such questions are raised by the affected parties. It is not the question here that a fraud has been done in the case Admittedly the validity of the order dated 29-5- 1988 passed by the A.D.C.(G)/D.S.C.
9. Was never assailed by any interested person before any higher forum. Thus the order, impugned was final in law and was not at all subject to scrutiny by the Verification Committee. The impugned order dated 21.6.1990 is therefore, declared null and void and is accordingly set aside. In consequence, this constitutional petition succeeds and is allowed with costs.