' This civil revision is directed against the judgment, date 16-9-1982, by which a learned Additional District Judge at Faisalabad, partly accepting the appeal of the petitioners, vacated the temporary injunction issued by the trial Court, vide its order, dated 20-12-1981, restraining the petitioners from making the production of certain 'No-Objection Certificates' as a condition precedent for the registration of any deed of the members of general public. He, however, maintained the stay order so far it operated to the extent of the respondent himself. The petitioners were aggrieved by the stay order to the extent it was maintained and they brought this revision.
2. It may be mentioned here that the revision is being heard ex parte because the respondent has not turned up to resist it despite service of notice.
3. Muhammad Yaqoob respondent had brought the suit on his own behalf as also on behalf of the general public against the Provincial Government and various functionaries of different departments thereof at Faisalabad, challenging the validity of instructions issued by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division (defendant-petitioner No,2) in his letter, dated 21-5-1981, directing the Deputy Commissioners/District Registrars in the Division, not to allow the registration of any deed presented by any member of public relating to urban immovable property, without the production of No-Objection Certificate' by him from Municipal Committee/Corporation and Excise and Taxation Department. He also challenged the validity of Memorandum No,229/DRA/Ahimad, dated 8-8-1981, issued by the Extra-Assistant Commissioner (Revenue), Faisalabad to the Tehsildar, Faisalabad, directing him not to register any sale-deed until the vendor of the immovable property obtained a No-Objection Certificate' from F.D.A. Regarding the acceptance of their development schemes. Similarly, he challenged the legality of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner /District Collector, Faisalabad, dated 15-11-1972, prohibiting the sale, and attestation of mutation or registration of sale-deed, of agricultural land, with a view to avoid the conversion of agricultural land into residential/commercial property, without the approval of the Government.
Likewise, he called in question the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad issued to Sub- Registrar/Tehsildar and NaibTehsildar, not to register any sale-deed in respect of urban immovable property, sale price of which was less than the standard sale price fixed by him for different localities town.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. Different functionaries of various departments of the Government perform different kinds of functions under the relevant laws and they are bound to act in accordance therewith. Therefore, to issue any order or direction an officer or functionary must have the legal backing to do so, otherwise such order or direction shall be without lawful authority and not to be acted upon. Various orders or directions referred to above and now under challenge in this case appear to be without lawful authority. For instance, the instructions contained in the letter, dated 21-5-1981, issued by the Commissioner, Sargodha Division (respondent No,2) to the Deputy Commissioners/District Registrars for not allowing the registration of any deed presented by any member of public relating in urban immovable property, without the production of No-Objection Certificate' from Municipal Committee/Corporation and from the Excise and Taxation Department, seem to be without any legal sanction behind them. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not been able to refer me to any law for the time being in force, under which the Commissioner has issued these instructions. Municipal Committees/Corporations and Excise and Taxation Departments have their own laws under which they exercise jurisdiction and perform various functions. They can better look after the fiscal interest of their own respective organisations. Similarly, a Registrar or Sub-Registrar acts under the Registration Act, 1908 and their functions or duties under this law are well defined. Therefore, apparently the Commissioner cannot and should not have issued such like instructions. Similarly, letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner to the Assistant Commissioner, which is now under challenge, appear to be of doubtful validity.
5. These functionaries, including the Commissioner, should know that their acts are challengeable before the Civil Courts by invoking their ordinary civil jurisdiction and before the superior Courts by invoking their extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction. With the development of new concept of public interest litigation in the recent years, a person can now invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the superior Courts even if he is not an aggrieved. Party. Therefore, they may be able to save their illegal instructions, directions or orders from being successfully challenged in the Civil Courts so long as they operate against the individuals, as the respondent in the instance case is, on the principle of aggrieved person, but they may not be able to save them if the same are challenged before the superior Courts by anyone in the context of public interest litigation. So they are well advised not to issue those instructions which have no legal backing.
6. With the above observations, I see no substance in this revision and the same is dismissed.