' The dispute in this case relates to an area of 2 kanals of land out of Khasra No,594 in village Jammon Chandowal, Tehsil Narowal, District Sialkot. The petitioner claims to be the allottee of this land under the orders passed by the Border Area Allotment Committee on 9th October, 1968. It appears that this allotment was cancelled by the officer incharge Border Area Cell on 12th June, 1973. According to the petitioners the order was passed behind his back and without hearing him and he was not aware of the cancellation. When he learnt about it, he on 12-10-1986 applied to the Chairman, Border Area Allotment Committee for restoration of the allotment. This application was dismissed by the Border Area Allotment Committee on 7-11-1988 on the ground that the allotment in his favour stood cancelled as far back as 12th June, 1973. It also observed that as the petitioner was not living in the village where the land was situate, he has violated the condition No,9 of Schedule 2 of Martial Law Regulation 9 under which the allotment had been made. The Border Area Allotment Committee in this behalf relied upon the statement of his General Attorney Sultan Ahmad according to whom the petitioner was permanent resident of Tehsil Shakargarh and had been allotted land in village Jalal of that tehsil and was out of country in connection with his employment.
2. This order of the Border Area Allotment Committee has been challenged by the petitioner by filing this constitutional petition.
3. Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that original order of cancellation was passed by the Officer Incharge of the Border Area Allotment Committee, who had absolutely no jurisdiction to do so, and the order passed by him was wholly void, coram non judice.
This contention of the learned counsel is well-founded and finds support from judgment of this Court in W.P. No,161-R of 1976 and W.P. No,1101 of 1973 and many other cases wherein it was held that the notification issued by the Provincial Government authorising Mian Waheeduddin to function as and in place of the Border Area Allotment Committee was illegal and all the notices issued and orders passed by him as Border Area Committee were without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is thus obvious that the order dated 20th July, 1973 was passed by wholly unauthorised person and is a nullity in the eye of law.
4. Mr. Muhammad Rafique Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents however, contended that even if the original order of cancellation was void, the allotment in favour of petitioner cannot be restored as petitioner was in breach of the conditions of allotment by not residing in village where the land was situate and instead proceeding abroad and as such the Border Area Allotment Committee was justified in refusing to restore the allotment and subsequent order passed on 7th November, 1988 cannot be struck down. This contention of the learned counsel is without any merit. It is by now well-settled that if the basic order is void, whole series of such orders as may be founded on it together with the entire superstructure of rights and obligations based on the same fall to ground. (See Yousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia and 2 others PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) p.104 and Ahmad Khan v. Member (Consolidation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others PLD 1990 SC 1070. This being so even the subsequent order cannot be sustained.
Before parting with the case it may be observed that the Province of Punjab has filed an application (C.M. No,2862 of 1990) for being impleaded as party in this petition on the ground that it is in possession of the land in question. Admittedly, no allotment has been made in favour of the applicant. It has thus no right in the land in question and cannot be impleaded as a party. The application (C.M. No,2862 of 1990) is dismissed.
As a result of the above, this petition is accepted, the impugned orders are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
' It is however, clarified that it shall be open to respondent No,1 to proceed afresh in the matter in accordance with law after notice to the petitioner.