' Necessary facts for disposal of this Constitution petition are that the dispute pertaining to the allotment of the land in question was agitated by filing a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner who vide order dated 24-4-1972, accepted the revision petition, set aside the impugned order of Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 22-9-1970 and remanded the case to him for fresh decision after hearing all the parties. The remand matter was then taken up by the Additional Settlement Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala, who after hearing the parties vide order dated 10-4-1974 further remanded the matter to Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Hafizabad, for holding fresh inquiry. The matter was, however, again taken up by Mr. M. Anis Nagi, Settlement Commissioner (Land) with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore. The petitioners raised an objection to assumption of jurisdiction by the said Settlement Commissioner on the plea that his predecessor vide order dated 24-4-1972 had remanded the case and as such the same matter cannot be heard and disposed of by him. This objection was repelled by the Settlement Commissioner observing that though the Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 24-4-1972 had set aside the order dated 22-9-1970 passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and had remanded the case for fresh inquiry but the Additional Settlement Commissioner in turn further remanded the case to Deputy Settlement Commissioner
(Land) vide order dated 10-4-1974. He added that this remand was unwarranted as the Additional Settlement Commissioner was persona designata for the purpose of this case and any order resulting from this remand was void ab initio. It was further noted that the case was still pending in the Court of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner when it was withdrawn by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and entrusted to his Court as delegatee of Chief Settlement Commissioner and thus he was reinvested with fresh jurisdiction which was surrendered while remanding the case by the predecessor Court.
2. This Court directed production of copy of the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner whereby statedly the case was withdrawn from the Court of Deputy Settlement Commissioner and entrusted to the Settlement Commissioner for disposal. Pursuant to this order a report dated 4-2- 1980 was submitted by the Settlement Commissioner wherein it was mentioned that the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner withdrawing the case from the file of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner is not available on record. However, photo copy of the order sheet was forwarded. A perusal of this order sheet shows that an order dated 12-3-1978 is to the effect that perusal of the order dated 24-4-1972 shows that the dispute pertains to allotment of land and these proceedings are not under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. This Court, therefore, has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter and as such the file be forwarded to Secretary Rural, Lahore. The Secretary Rural then appended a note which reads as under:-- "These are revision petitions and are to be disposed of by a S.C. (L).
' May entrust this case to Mr. Abdul Majid Jamil, S.C. (L) for, disposal."
' This note was then approved by Mr. A.K. Khalid, M.B.R. (Settlement) on 16-4-1978. This order admittedly is based on non-existent premises as at this stage no revision petition was pending.
The matter stood remanded vide order dated 24-4-1972 of the Settlement Commissioner to the Additional Settlement Commissioner and further to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 10-4-1974 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. It is, therefore, apparent that the Settlement Commissioner was not right in saying that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had withdrawn the proceedings from the Court of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and had entrusted the same to him for disposal.
3. The position which emerges is that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had only approved a note that a revision petition was pending and the same was to be disposed of by the Settlement Commissioner. This was factually incorrect. Even otherwise on 16-4-1978, no power vested in the Chief Settlement Commissioner/M.B.R. (Settlement) to withdraw proceedings from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. A pending matter had to be disposed of by a notified officer and as such the revision petition could not be diposed of afresh by a Settlement Commissioner. The impugned order dated 14-6-1979 passed by the Settlement Commissioner (Land) as such is without lawful authority.
4. Another plea of the learned counsel for Mst. Hassan Quli respondent No,2, may be noted at this stage. He argued that pursuant to the order dated 14-6-1979, Mst. Hassan Quli, being refugee from Jammu and Kashmir, has paid the pirce of the same in accordance with the scheme approved by the Central Government and as such she has become full owner. Admittedly this payment was made pursuant to the order dated 14-6-1979 which has been held to be without jurisdiction.
Moreover this order was under-challenge before this Court in the present petition and as such once this order is held to be without jurisdiction, no rights on the basis of payment pursuant thereto can be claimed. The net result of the above discussion is that this petition succeeds, the order dated 14-6-1979 of the Settlement Commissioner is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and hence of no legal effect. The matter pending before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner shall be treated to be still pending and shall be disposed of by the notified officer in accordance with law. The parties are, however, left to bear their own cost. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.