1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioners have sought leave to appeal against the judgment of a Division Bench of High Court of Sindh dated 11-8-1993 whereby Constitution Petition No, 135 of 1990 filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the order passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner-I, Hyderabad holding that the suit property was not available for allotment out of the compensation pool in favour of the petitioners, was upheld.
2. ' The relevant facts of the case are that one Nabi Jan, a displaced person from India, was allotted land measuring 1.8 Acres and 2.7 Acres out of Survey Nos. 61 and 62 respectively belonging to Hindu evacuee namely Keval Ram Shamdas in Hyderabad District. This allotment was confirmed under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to `the Act' only) by issuance of Khatauni No,9/12/252/4 which bears the date of 24-6-1965. That on the basis of Khatauni name of said Nabi Jan was entered in the Revenue Record as owner of the said land. After the death of Nabi Jan, the names of the petitioners who claim to be his legal heirs, were brought on record as the owners of the said land. The Municipal Commissioner, Hyderabad by his letter dated 24-1-1982 protested against the mutation of the names of -the petitioners as owners in respect of abovementioned 2 survey numbers on the ground that the said land was acquired by the Central Government for Satellite Town. The Additional Deputy Commissioner on the basis of the letter of Commissioner, Hyderabad, took up the dispute and by order dated 6-2-1986 held that the abovementioned survey numbers were transferred vide Notification No,F.16(41)/51-P to the Provincial Government, after the same was acquired by the Government of Pakistan. It was, accordingly, held that as the abovementioned survey numbers stood acquired by the Government they did not form part of compensation pool constituted under Section 4 of the Act and as such their transfer in favour of the petitioner was void. The order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 6-2-1986 was challenged by the petitioners in Constitution Petition No, D-45 of 1986 which was accepted by a Division Bench of High Court of Sindh by order dated 30-5-1989 on the ground that the affected parties were not heard by the Additional. Deputy Commissioner before passing the impugned order. The learned Judges of the High Court while declaring the order of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad, dated 6-2-1986 as without lawful authority and of no legal effect left it open to the said officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law after serving notice and hearing legal heirs of the original allottee in the case. It appears that after the judgment of High Court of Sindh dated 30-5-1989 in Constitution Petition No, 45 of 1986, the petitioners themselves approached the Additional Deputy Commissioner with the request that the entry with regard to their names as owners of the above survey numbers be restored in the Revenue Record.
3. On the aforesaid application of the petitioners, Additional Deputy Commissioner issued notice to all the necessary parties in the case and after hearing them, by his order dated 13-10-1990, held that the land in dispute was acquired by the Central Government and transferred to the Provincial Government for utilizing for Satellite Town, Latifabad, in the year 1951. As a result of these findings, it was further held by the Additional Deputy Commissioner that the land, when it was transferred in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of the Act, was not available in the compensation pool and as such its transfer in favour of Nabi Jan was void. The decision of the Additional Deputy Commissioner was once again challenged in Constitution Petition No, D-135 of 1990 which was disposed of by the impugned judgment giving rise to the present petition.
4. ' Mr. Akhlaq A. Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended before us that the suit land being an evacuee property could not be acquired by the Government and as such when a Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued acquiring all the agricultural land in the Province of West Pakistan, the suit land also became part of compensation pool and was, therefore, rightly transferred to the petitioners' predecessor Nabi Jan. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has no merit. The petitioners have filed a copy of Notification by which the land was acquired by the Central Government, at page 38 of the Paper Book, which reads as follows: "No,F.16(41)/51-P.--In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 9 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance, 1948 (XIX of 1948), the Central Government is pleased to requisition under subsection (1) and acquire under subsection (2) of the said section the property a description of which is given in the schedule appended below.
5. ' It is further ordered that with effect from the date of issue of this Order the said land shall be placed at the disposal of the Government of Sindh.
6. Schedule ' Land covered by Survey Nos. 7, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 25, 26, 59, 6-K, 62, 66, 67, 68, 131, 246, 258, 259, 260, 261, 282, 287, 292, 312, 322 and 331 situated in Deh Gidu Bunder, Hyderabad (Sindh)."
7. ' Section 9 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance, 1948 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Ordinance' only), under which above Notification was issued, reads as follows:--- "9. (1) If in the opinion of the Central Government it is necessary or expedient so to do for the purposes of this Ordinance, it may by order in writing requisition any property movable or immovable, and may make such further orders not inconsistent with this Ordinance as appear to it to be necessary or expedient in connection with the requisition: ' Provided that no property used for the purpose of religious worship shall be requisitioned under this subsection.
(2) The Central. Government may use or deal with any property .Requisitioned under subsection (1), in such manner as may appear to it to be expedient, and may acquire it by serving on the owner thereof, or where the owner is not readily traceable or the ownership is in dispute, by publishing in the official Gazette, a notice stating that the Central Government has decided to acquire the property in pursuance of this subsection.
(3) Where a notice of acquisition is served on the owner of the property or published in the official Gazette under subsection (2), then at the beginning of the day on which the notice is so served or published, the property shall vest in the Central Government free from any mortgage, pledge, lien or other similar encumbrance, and the period of the requisition thereof shall end.
(4) Whenever in pursuance of subsection (1) or subsection (2) the Central Government requisitions or acquires any property, the owner thereof and any person having a charge, pledge or lien or other encumbrances on such property shall be paid such compensation as the Government may determine (and the compensation so determined shall not be called in question in any Court).
(5) The Central Government may, with a view to requisitioning any property under subsection (1) or determining the compensation payable under subsection (4), by order---
(a) require any person to furnish to such authority as may be specified in the order such information in his possession relating to the property as may be so specified;
(b) direct that the owner, occupier or person in possession of the property shall not without the permission of the Central Government dispose of it, or where the property is a building, structurally alter it, till the expiry of such period as may be specified in the order.
(6) Without prejudice to any powers otherwise conferred by this Ordinance, any person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government may enter any premises and inspect such premises and any property therein or thereon, for the purpose of determining whether, and, if so, in what manner, an order under this section shall be made in relation to such premises or property, or with a view to securing compliance with any order under this section."
8. ' Section 9(1) of the Ordinance authorised the Central Government to requisition any property except a place/property used for religious worship, through an order in writing, for the purposes of the Ordinance, if in its opinion it was necessary and expedient to do so. Under subsection (2) ibid, the Central Government could use a requisitioned property in such manner as it deemed fit and may also acquire the same by serving a notice on the owner of the property or where owner is not traceable or the ownership of the property is in dispute, by publishing a notice in the official Gazette stating that the Central Government has decided tr acquire the property. Upon publication of notice under subsection (2) ibid, the property stood vested in the Central Government free from any mortgage, pledge, lien or similar other encumbrance and the period of requisition also stood terminated in term of subsection (3) ibid. The only right which the owner of such property possessed after the acquisition was to receive compensation as may be determined by the Government and apart from that no other right of the owner existed in respect of that property. It is, therefore, quite clear that after issuance of the Notification by the Central Government in 1951, the suit property stood acquired free from all encumbrances and the same was later placed at the disposal of the Provincial Government for the purpose of Satellite Town Scheme. In these circumstances, the land in suit neither formed part of compensation pool constituted under section 4, subsection (2) of the said Act nor it was available for transfer under the provisions of the Act. The property not being available in the compensation pool, its transfer in favour of Nabi Jan through Khatauni issued in the year 1965 was, therefore, not legal. The learned High Court in the circumstances, rightly reached the conclusion that the allotment in favour of Nabi Jan was of no legal effect. There is no merit in this petition, which is accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.