' This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos, 2749 and 3122 of 1975 involving identical questions of law and facts and arising out of the same order dated 2-6-1975 passed by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore.
2. This case has a chequered history. It is not necessary to go into detailed background of the case.
Suffice it to say that vide memorandum No, DSL-II-321/68/2355-L.0 dated 1-6-1968, the Land Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan was informed that the Chief Land Commissioner, passed an order directing that the sale by public auction of lots No, 148 to 269 of village Chaubara, Tehsil Leiah, District Muzaffargarh, should not be confirmed, in that, the auction was not held after proper publicity and the lots could not fetch reasonable price. Ali Muhammad son of Umar Din petitioner herein, vide Writ Petition No, 1577 of 1969 alongwith four others challenged this order. Apart from that, Writ Petitions Nos, 1577/69, 601/69, 1107/69, 1434/69, 367/70 and 696 of 1969 were directed against the aforesaid order of the Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore dated 1-6-1969.
All the writ petitions were accepted by order dated 16-2-1971 passed in Writ Petition No, 1577 of 1969, the operative part of which reads thus:- "It is, therefore, clear that the impugned order of the Chief Land Commissioner dated 1-6-1968, which was passed after the Sale Conditions had already been amended, was completely without jurisdiction. Therefore, we have no option but to hold that the said order was without lawful authority which we hereby quash. The result would be that all these cases would now go to the Land Commissioner, Multan, before whom the proceedings, by which the land was sold to the petitioners, would be deemed to be pending for disposal according to law. Needless to say that the learned Land Commissioner would issue notices to the parties and afford them full opportunity of hearing before passing any order. Under the circumstances there would be no order as to costs."
3. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chattha, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in the previous writ petitions stated above, it was held by this Court that the authority who confirmed the sale was the Land Commissioner and not the Chief Land Commissioner. Consequently, a direction was issued that the case should be decider by the Land Commissioner in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in pursuance of the direction of this Court dated 6-2-1971, he confirmed the sale in favour of the petitioners by order dated 1-1-1975 and, therefore, this order was not open to challenge before the Chief Land Commissioner in the garb of revisional jurisdiction.
4. Raja Dilshad Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the respondents Nos, 3 to 5 in writ petition No, 2749/75 and respondents Nos, 2 to 11 in writ petition No, 3122 of 75, submitted that in the order dated 16-2-1971 passed in writ petition No, 1577 of 1969, the direction of the Chief Land Commissioner was declared to be not according to law and the matter was remanded to the Land Commissioner concerned for fresh decision and there was, therefore, no bar on the Chief Land Commissioner to exercise his revisional jurisdiction and examine legality, correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Land Commissioner on l-1-1975, after remand by the High Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
The admitted facts are that Chief Land Commissioner by order dated 1-6-1968 passed order to the effect that the auction in respect of land in dispute be not confirmed and the same be re- auctioned after proper publicity as the lots could not fetch reasonable price. This order was quashed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 16-2-1971 passed in Writ Petition No, 1577 of 1969. Ali Muhammad petitioner herein, was party to the said writ petition. In pursuance of the said judgment of the High Court Mr. Asad Ali Shah, Land Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, by order dated 1-9-1971, after hearing the parties and perusing the material available on record, recorded a finding of fact that the lots did not fetch a good price in the fast auction. Consequently, the prayer of the petitioner regarding confirmation of ten disputed lots was dismissed. It was, however, also observed that it was difficult to state with certainty that whether out of five lots namely lots No, 199, 200, 262, 264 and 267 would have fetched better price. On this basis, auction in respect of these five lots were confirmed subject to fulfilment of conditions of auction. On revision, the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore, by order dated 31-8-1974 again remitted the matter for fresh decision to the Land Commissioner in the light of observations made by this Court in Writ Petition No, 1577 of 1969. In compliance with the remand order, the Addl. Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab/Land Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan by order dated 1-1-1975 confirmed the sale of lots in favour of the first auction purchasers with the direction that subsequent auction purchasers including the respondents herein may claim refund of the purchase price deposited by them. On second revision, filed by the contesting respondents, Mr.S.M.
Nasim, the learned Addl. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore vide impugned order dated 2-61975 set aside the judgment of the Land Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, on the ground that the auction held on 13-6-1967 was not proper and the sale of lots to respondents was not complete.
6. It is an admitted fact that in the previous writ petition, it was held that the authority who confirmed the sale was the Land Commissioner and not the Chief Land Commissioner. Clearly, the confirmation was to be made by the Land Commissioner and not the Chief Land Commissioner vide impugned order. The Chief Land Commissioner has erroneously assumed the jurisdiction which he did not possess in terms of the previous order passed by this Court in the said writ petition. The impugned order is virtually to the same effect which was passed by him earlier. In the first round of litigation it was quashed by this Court on 16-2-1971. Admittedly the confirming authority was the Land Commissioner and, therefore, his function could not have been performed by the Chief Land Commissioner vide impugned order in the garb or exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is well-settled that what cannot be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly.
7. When faced with this, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that in the first round of litigation, the Court was not apprised of the correct position of law and jurisdiction of the Land Reforms Authority, in that, the effect of the relevant provisions in respect of delegation of powers under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1959 was not taken into consideration by the Division Bench of this Court while deciding the Writ Petition No, 1577 of 1969. It is submitted that the provisions of Land Reform Regulations, 1972, provide appeal and revision against the orders passed by the subordinate Land Reforms Authorities and, therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The contention is misconceived. The order dated 16-2-1971 passed in writ petition No, 1577 of 1969 and other connected writ petitions, were not challenged before the Supreme Court which, therefore, attained finality. Even otherwise this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction cannot sit in judgment over the decision given by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No, 1577 of 1969.
' In view of the above, the order dated 2-6-1975 of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner is hereby declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and consequently, the order dated 1-1-1975 of the Land Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan stands restored.
' In the result the writ petitions are accepted but the parties shall bear their own costs.