ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.-This order will dispose of Writ Petitions No.314/R/85, 318/R/85, 321/R/85, 322/R/85 and 6/R/86 as identical facts and common questions of law are involved in all of them. In fact, the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 318/R/85, 321/R/85 and 322/R/85 and 6/R/86 are the transferees from the petitioners in W.P. No.314/R/1985.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of these petitions briefly stated, are that Qasim Ali Khan, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in W.P. No. 314/R/85 was a claimant displaced person who, it is stated, was allotted evacuee agricultural land measuring 26 kanals and 9 marlas comprised in killa Nos.13,14 and 15 of square No.70 situate in Chak No.213/RB, tehsil and district Faisalabad on temporary basis in the year 1947. It appears that the Settlement Authorities refused to confirm the temporary allotment on the premises that 5235 acres of evacuee land around Faisalabad Town which included the land in dispute had been exchanged with the state land with the result that the land temporarily allotted to the petitioners' predecessor had lost its evacuee character and as such it was not available for transfer/confirmation. Feeling aggrieved, Qasim Ali Khan along with others filed W.P. No.1420/66 to challenge the aforesaid exchange. During the course of hearing of that petition, learned Assistant Advocate-General appearing for the Province of Punjab made a statement that if the claims of the petitioners therein were available in the revenue estate concerned, Provincial Government shall allow the land in dispute to be confirmed in their favour in accordance with the relevant law and the Scheme applicable so as to avoid dislocation of genuine claimants. Learned Chief Justice of the then West Pakiistan High Court who was hearing the writ petition observed that the question as to whether the claims of the petitioners therein were available in the revenue estate concerned or not was a disputed question of fact which it was not possible to determine in writ proceedings. Counsel for the parties then agreed that the best course would be to It the case be examined by a learned Settlement Commissioner to be nominated by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to determine the aforementioned disputed question of fact as also the entitlement of the petitioners in accordance with the relevant law and the scheme. It was further agreed that "In case the learned Settlement Commissioner finds that the petitioners are entitled to the transer of the land on account of their claim being pending in this estate on the date of the institution of the writ petition, he shall make the necessary order irrespective of the fact that the land no longer forms part of the compensation pool."Parties further agreed that the decision of the nominated Settlement Commissioner shall be final insofar as the settlement courts are concerned. Writ petition was accordingly disposed of vide order dated 11.6.1970 (Annex A).
3. In pursuance of the aforementioned orders of this Court, Addl Commissioner (Revenue) with powers of the Settlement Commissioner (L), the officer nominated by the Chief Settlement Commissioner took up the case of the present petitioners and after going through the relevant record came to the conclusion that "the petitioner was fully entitled to get the allotment against his pending units according to law and the Scheme." Settlement Commissioner accordingly by his order dated 24.7.72 (Annex B) confirmed killa Nos. 13(6-9), 14(9-2) and 15(8-9) of square No.70 total measuring 24 kanals 2 marlas situate in Chak No. 213/RB, tehsil and district Faisalabad in favour of the petitioners against 243 pending units. The order passed by the Settlement Commissioner was implemented in the revenue record. Subsequently, however, petitioners were ordered to be evicted under MLO 821 on the allegation that they were in unauthorised occupation of the land in dispute together with some other land. Petitioners challenged the order of their eviction in W.P. No.5107 of 1983 contending therein that they were the transferees of the land measuring 24 kanals 2 marlas which was duly confirmed to them by the Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 24.7.1972 in pursuance of the order of the High Court passed in W.P. No.1420/1966. Confronted with this position, Addl:AG agreed "that the authorities will pass fresh orders with regard to 24 kanals 2 marlas of land after giving Muhammad Ashraf Khan petitioner an opportunity of being heard in this regard." In view of the statement of the Addl Advocate-General, Muhammad Ashraf Khan petitioner was directed "to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 1.7.1985 who will dispose of the matter afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to Muhammad Ashraf Khan petitioner." This was vide order dated 9.6.1985 passed in W.P. No.5107/83.
4. It appears that the Deputy Commissioner instead of disposing of the matter himself entrusted the case to AJDC(G)/DSC, Faisalabad who proceeded to examine the validity of the aforementioned order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 24.7.1972 whereby the land in dispute was confirmed to the petitioners. Petitioners objected to the jurisdiction of the officer on the ground that the case had been remanded to the Deputy Commissioner for disposal who alone was competent to pass appropriate orders. ADC)(G)/DSC repelled this objection holding that he being the Notified Officer was the competent authority to dispose of all pending rural/urban settlement work and that was why the Deputy Commissioner had transferred the case to him. Petitioners then made an application for summoning some record which application, too, was rejected by the ADC(G)/DSC and the officer finally held that the claim of the petitioners was not pending in the revenue estate on the date of the institution of the writ petition i.e. In 1966 and, therefore, they were not entitled to the transfer of any land in Chak No. 213/RB. The allotment of the land in dispute was accordingly cancelled by the ADC(G)/DSC vide his order dated 23.10.1985 (Annex K). This order has been brought under challenge in the present constitutional petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this Court remanded the case to the Deputy Commissioner for disposal but he instead transferred it to ADC(G) who had no jurisdiction under M.L.O.821. He further contends that, in any case, neither the Deputy Commissioner nor the ADC(G)/DSC could sit in judgment over the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 24.7.1972 whereby the land in dispute was confirmed in favour of the petitioners and reopen the question of the petitioners' entitlement which stood concluded by the said order of the Settlement Commissioner. According to the learned counsel, by the remand order, Deputy Commissioner was only to examine whether the land in dispute was, in fact, allotted/confirmed to the petitioners by the Settlement Commissioner. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other had, contends that the case, no doubt, was remanded (k> the Deputy Commissioner but since the question of the entitlement of the petitioner was involved, he rightly sent the case to the ADC(G), the officer notified as DSC who alone could examine and decide whether the petitioners were entitled to the transfer of the land in dispute. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that on the facts found by the ADC(G), his order cancelling the petitioner's entitlement is unexceptionable.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and we find that the Deputy Commissioner acted wholly illegally in sending the case of the petitioners to ADC(G). Quite clearly, it was the Deputy Commissioner who in the context of the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under MIX). 821 was to decide whether the petitioners were unauthorised occupants of the land in dispute or they were the transferees thereof by virtue of an order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 24.7.1972 as contended for by them. ADC(G) obviously had no jurisdiction in the matter. Apart from this, the order of the Settlement Commissioner holding that the petitioners were entitled to get the allotment against their pending units was final and binding qua the Settlement Courts and it was so observed in the order of this Court dated 11.6.1970 in pursuance whereof the Settlement Commissioner had passed the ing the land in dispute to the petitioners. It may pertinently be observed that the said order of the Settlement Commissioner was never challenged in any appropriate proceedings. It had thus attained finality. That being so, it was not available either to the Deputy Commissioner or to the ADC(G) to re-examine the question of the petitioners' entitlement. More so, the ADC(G) with powers of the DSC was wholly incompetent to sit in judgment over the finding/order of the Settlement Commissioner. Viewed thus from whatever angle, the impugned order of the ADC(G)/DSC suffers from a total lack of jurisdiction and it is accordingly so declared.
7. Upshoot of the above discussion is that we allow all these writ petitions declaring the impugned order of the ADC(G) DSC dated 23.10.1985 to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There will be no order as to costs.