This writ petition arises out of order dated 11-12-1976 passed by the Officer on Special Duty (Central Record Office), Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing), Lahore whereby he in purported exercise of jurisdiction under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act cancelled the entitlement certificate issued in favour of Col. (Retd.) MA. Akmal, the predecessor-in interest of the petitioners.
2. The main ground. urged by the learned counsel for petitioners is that the Officer-on-Special Duty had no jurisdiction to cancel the entitlement certificate issued on the basis of the verification of the claim as stipulated in para. 12 of Martial Law Regulation No. 89. It was also contended that the Officer-on-Special Duty in the Central Record Office only acted as a Reporting Officer and was not vested with jurisdiction in the nature of judicial or quasi judicial authority, so as to pass the impugned order which suffered for lack of jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali etc. v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others [PLD 1973 SC 236 (251)].
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Settlement Department as well as the contesting respondent No.2 did not seriously join issue in this regard. The learned counsel for the Settlement Department only stated that the Officer-on-Special Duty, passed the impugned order in the capacity of an administrative officer but candidly conceded that he had no jurisdiction under section 10 or 11 of the Displaced Persons (Laud Settlement) Act to cancel the entitlement certificate issued in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. He also conceded that finality is attached to the entitlement certificate issued under para. 12 of Martial Law Regulation No. 89 and the same could hardly be cancelled by any authority.
At this stage learned counsel for the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner and to contesting respondent pointed out that they filed C.M.No. 723/88 whereby they reached a compromise and seek disposal of this writ petition in terms thereof.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the impugned order. In my view, the respondent No.l passed the impugned order in purported exercise of the jurisdiction, not vested in him. On the strength of the law laid down in Raunaq Ali's case cited above read with the provisions of para. 12 of Martial Law Regulation No. 89, the impugned order is not sustainable for want of jurisdiction. It is thus declared having been passed without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
Learned counsel for the Settlement Department raised no objection to the other terms of the agreement reached between the parties to this petition. This writ petition is, therefore, allowed and disposed of in accordance with the rest of the terms reached between the parties as mentioned in C.M. No.723/88, with no order as to costs. ,