1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This is an appeal by special leave of this Court. The appellant claims to be an informer and he has been aggrieved by an .Order of a Division Bench of the then High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, ,dismissing his writ petition in limine.
2. The dispute between the parties is over property No. B-Ilf-6-S-18, Okara in the District of Sahiwal. It consists of two rooms used as shops, one of which was in possession of respondent Abdul Hamid, a non-claimant displaced person, and the other in possession of respondent Allah Diya a local.
3. By an order dated the 27th of November 1959, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the entire shop as one unit to respondent Abdul Hamid on the basis of his N. C. S. Form. Subsequently, Abdul Hamid and appellant Khuda Bakhsh entered into an agreement of association and it was accepted on the 20th of April 1960. By the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and a Provisional Transfer Order was directed to be issued jointly to the appellant and respondent Abdul Hamid.
4. Respondent Allah Diya filed an appeal against respondent Abdul Hamid from the order dated the 27th of November 1959, before the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. The appeal was .Allowed on the 23rd of May 1960, and it was held that as a matter of fact there were two shops in the property in dispute. Accordingly, one of the shops that was in possession of Allah Diya was ordered to be transferred to him and the other shop in possession of Abdul Hamid was transferred to the latter.
5. Respondent Abdul Hamid went up in revision before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and the latter by his order dated 21st of November 1960, accepted the revision. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner agreed that there were two rooms in the property which were two separate and independent units and they were to be treated as such. Allah Diya was found to be a local and the transfer of the shop, in his favour was cancelled and it was ordered that the shop would go to the-, pool for an unrestricted auction.
6. Allah Diya went up in second revision before Raja Ziaullah Khan, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, and the latter by an order dated the 9th of May 1962, dismissed the revision as the records of the case had been summoned after the coming into effect of Ordinance II of 1962 whereby section 20(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, had been repealed. Nevertheless accepting the recommendation of the Enforcement Staff and exercising his suo motu powers tile Chief Settle-- ment and Rehabilitation Commissioner ordered the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to transfer the property to Khuda Bakhsh as an informer,. And also directed cancellation of the auction held on the 14th of March 1961,. On certain conditions.
7. The order of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner was impugned in the High Court in a writ petition filed by Allah Diya but. It was not interfered with. Allah Diya's petition for special leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on the 20th of December 1962, with an observation that he might ask for review of the order dated the 9th, of May 1962 may be mentioned here that in the meantime as there was no order restraining the auction, the auction had been held on the 14th of March 1961, in pursuance of the order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner dated the 21st of November 1960, and respondent Khushi Muhammad had purchased the portion in possession of Allah Diya. The auction was confirmed on the 18th of March 1961, and the entire amount had been paid by the purchaser. The appellant preferred no appeal and took no action against the sale.
8. Allah Diya, in pursuance of the order of this Court dated the 20th of December 1962, filed a review petition from the said order of Raja Ziaullah Khan, Settlement Commissioner dated the 9th of May 1962, and it was dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner by an order dated. The 7th of November 1966, on the ground that the powers of review had ceased to exist since the 13th of January 1962. It was observed that the said order dated the 9th of May 1962, in so far as it had transferred the property to informer Khuda Bakhsh, was incompetent and void, inasmuch as the records of the case had not been summoned before the target date i.e. 13th of January 1962, and that the power to transfer a shop to any informer ceased to exist from the 13th of January 1962. In support of his views the Chief Settlement Commissioner relied on the cases of Muhammad Swaleh (PLD1964 SC 97) and Muhammad Siddiq v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1965 SC 123). In PLD 1964 SC 97 it has been observed as follows :- "It should be remembered that if an order be a nullity then every Court before whom it is brought is not only entitled, but bound to ignore it."
9. I shall advert to the case reported in PLD 1965 SC 123 hereafter. The result was that the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated the 21st of November 1960, became final.
10. It is, however, curious that while Allah Diya's aforesaid writ petition had been pending in the High Court tile Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the shop to Khuda Bakhsh appellant on the 4th of July 1962, and a P. T. D. Was issued to him on the 23rd of October 1962.
11. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated the 7th of November 1966, and it was dismissed in limine on the 3rd of February 1967. The learned Judge of the High Court agreed with the views expressed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in his order dated the 7th of November 1966, that the order dated the 9th of May 1962, whereby a shop in dispute had been transferred to the informant, was without jurisdiction and void.
12. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the Chief Settle--ment Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain any revision against the order dated the 9th of May 1962, transferring the shop to the appellant.
13. The order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated the 9th oft May 1962, was without jurisdiction as on that date he had ceased to have any power to transfer the shop to the informer i.e. The appellant This is borne out by two decisions of this Court in the case of Muhammad Siddiq v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and the case of Allah Ditta v. Jan Muhammad (PLD 1974 SC 113).
14. In the first case it has been observed as follows at page 130 of the report "Section 10 of the Act was substituted by another section by Ordinance it of 1962 on 13-1-62. In the new section, instead of the old clause (b), the following was inserted as subsection (2) :- '(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) the Central Government may order the transfer in public interest of any property out of the compensation pool in such manner as it may deem proper.'
15. Henceforth, therefore, there was no question of transfer by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, of any evacuee property under this clause, with the approval of the Central Government. In future, only the Central Government could order a transfer in public interest. In view of this change of the law, the order issued on the 2nd of September 1961, under clause (b) of section 10, as it then stood, had lost its efficacy. The impugned order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner was passed on 12-3-62, long after this amendment and indeed, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that this circumstance alone sufficed to invalidate the impugned order of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner."
16. In the second case the following observations appear at pages 118 and 119 :- "Under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 only those persons were eligible for transfer of a house, shop etc. Who were in possession before the 20th of December 1958.
17. A person who laid information under S. R. O. No. 824(x)/1961 that an evacuee property was in unauthorised possession or was the subject-- matter of irregular transfer was obviously not in possession. He was, therefore, not eligible to apply for transfer of the house, shop etc. In respect of which he laid information to the Directorate of Enforce--ment. The legal force behind the S. R. O. No. 824(x)/1961 which was promulgated by the Central Government on 1-9-1961, was clause (b) of section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. It authorised the Chief Settlement Commis--sioner to dispose of an evacuee house, shop etc. In such other manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government. Section 10 was re-drafted by the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita--tion) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1962 (II of 1962). Both clauses (a) and (b) were substituted by subsection (2)
18. 'Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), the Central Government may order the transfer in public interest of any property out of the compensation pool in such manner as it may deem proper.'
19. Power to transfer evacuee properties to informers who were not in possession was thus taken away with effect from the 13th January 1062 when the Ordinance came into force. The provisions of section 6 of the General Clauses Act also did not apply as no right had come to be ve3ted in the informers. All pending cases under S. R. No. 824 (x)/1961 therefore lapsed with the repeal of clause
(b) of section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Act, 1958. "
20. The order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated the 7th of November 1966, had merely pointed out the want of jurisdiction in the order dated the 9th of May 1962. The order dated the 9th of May 1962, was void ab initio on account of want of jurisdiction in the Chief Settlement B Commissioner to pass the order, and it was, therefore, a, nullity and could be ignored. Such an order did not require to be set aside in appeal or in any other proceeding. Vide PLD 1964 SC 97 at page 101. In the case of Yusuf All Mullah Noor Bhoy v. The King (PLD 1949PC108) it was observed as follows :- "But if the orders were a nullity there was nothing to appeal against. It may well be that the Government if embarrassed by the orders of acquittal, might have applied to the High Court to quash them. In this connection reference may be made to the decision of the House of Lords in Crane v. Director of Police Prosecutions, (1921) 2 A C 299 ;(90 L J K B 1160). But the omission of Government to take such a step, which was not incumbent, could not convert an order made without jurisdiction into an order -passed by Court of competent jurisdic--tion. Some emphasis was laid on the conduct of the Government of Bombay in appealing against the orders passed by the learned Magistrate, under section 517, Criminal P. C. It may be that the High Court ought not to have entertained such appeals, but no question as to the validity of the orders made in these appeals is before the Board. It was rightly conceded by Mr. Page that the action of the Government of Bombay in appealing against the orders made by the Magistrate under section 517 could not operate by way of estoppel to confer jurisdiction upon the Magistrate which he did not otherwise possess."
21. If the order dated the 9th of May 1962, is removed from the field there is left the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated the 21st of November 1960, whereby the shop in possession of Allah Diya was ordered to be sold in auction.
22. The High Court, therefore, quite rightly agreed with the view of the Chief Settlement Commissioner as expressed in his order dated the 7th of November 1966.
23. The appellant's contention that the repeal of section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, did not affect the transfer in his favour as it was a pending matter on the date of the amend--ment effect by Ordinance II of 1962, stands repelled by this Court in the case of Allah Ditta v. Jan Muhammad.
24. It has next been contended on behalf of the appellant that a P. T. D. Having already been issued to the appellant on,- the 23rd of October 1962, the Settlement Authorities had no longer any jurisdiction to interfere with the deed. This contention has no substance. The transfer order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated the 4th of July 1962, whereby the disputed shop was transferred to the appellant and the P. T. D. Issued to him on the 23rd of October 1962, were both fruitless, because the former was made pendente lite while Allah Diya's writ petition was still pending before the High Court, and it flowed from the void order dated the 9th of May 1962 and the latter because it flowed from the former which was itself the offspring of a void and incompetent order. The cases cited in support of this contention do not apply to the facts of the present case.
25. On the contrary the following observation of this Court in the case of Yousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia (PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 104), fully supports the view that I have taken :- "Where the Legislature clothes an order with finality, it always assumes that the order which it declares to be final is within the powers of the authority making it. And no party can plead as final an order made in excess of the powers of the authority making it, in the eye of the law such order being void and non-existent. And if on the basis of a void order subsequent orders have been passed either by the same authority or by other authorities, the whole series of such orders, together with the superstructure of rights and obligations built upon them, must, unless some statute or principle of law recognizing as legal the changed position of the parties is in operation, fall to the ground because such orders have as little legal foundation as the void order on which they are founded."
26. There is another aspect of the case. As has been noticed already, the Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 21st of November 1960, held that the two shop rooms were two separate and independent units.
27. This division has not been interfered with by the Chief Settlement Commis--sioner in his order dated the 9th of May 1962. In fact the division has not been interfered with by the High Court either.
28. Thus, the divisibility of the property into two distinct and independent units stands. Each of the two units was possessed by a different person i.e. Abdul Hamid and Allah Diya That being so, one of them having already been transferred to Abdul Hamid the other could not be transferred to him, and thus it could not be transferred to his associate, namely, the appellant, to whom a joint P. T. O.
29. Along with Abdul Hamid had been issued earlier.
30. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed but without any order as to costs. s. A. H.
…and 40 more citing cases