' Through this Constitutional petition the petitioners have challenged the legality of order, dated 27- 6-1995 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) respondent No,10 whereby he accepted the appeal filed by Haji Murad Ali, respondent No,1 and set aside the orders, dated 28-3- 1991 and 25-1-1995 passed by the District Collector for referring the case to the Secretary (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. They have also challenged order dated 29-9-1996 whereby their revision petition was dismissed in limine by the Member, Board of Revenue.
2. The case has a chequered history which has been given in detail in paras.1 to 19 of the writ petition. The dispute pertains to land measuring one Kanal which was purchased by Ehsan Muhammad Khan, deceased, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners vide sale-deed, dated 14- 11-1970 from Aal-eMuhammad and Shah Muhammad, respondents 2 and 3 who were shown to be its owners on the basis of RL-II No,583, Mauza Amer Sidhu, Lahore. The deceased vendee did not take any step during his lifetime to give effect to the sale-deed in the revenue record. On 26-12- 1989 his widow Mst. Shamima Khatoon, petitioner No,1 made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore stating therein that her husband and purchased one Kanal of land out of Khasra No,835 situated in village Amer Sidhu, Lahore and prayed for a copy of RL-II No,583 for having the mutation of land entered in her name. On this application the Tehsildar, Lahore submitted a report that Khasra No,835 of RL-II No,583 was allotted to Aal-e-Muhammad and Shah Muhammad respondents 2 and 3 but the same Khasra number was also included in Khata No,654 in the name of Mst. Hadayat Begum, respondent No,5. Therefore, it was recommended that the sale be implemented in the Revenue Record and that Mst. Hadayat Begum whose allotment deserved to be cancelled be heard in person. Presumably in view of the delicate question of title involved in the matter the D.C. Passed an order on 1-8-1990 to the effect that the applicant be advised to move the Civil Court. Thereafter, petitioner No,1 filed a number of miscellaneous applications on which the matter remained pending before the revenue authorities. At one stage Haji Murad Ali, respondent No,1 appeared before the Extra-Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) and made an application stating therein that Khata No,583 of RL-II did not exist in the name of Aal-e- Muhammad and Shah Muhammad. The Naib-Tehsildar/Qanungo made a report that Khata No,583 regarding land measuring 276 Kanals, 6 Marlas stood confirmed in the name of Mst. Allah Daee but it did not include Khasra No,835 and that the said Khasra number did not stand in the name of Aal-e-Muhammad and Shah Muhammad but was included in Khata No,654 confirmed in the name of Mst. Hadayat Begum. In view of contradictory reports on the record the D.C. Directed the A.D.C.(G) to hold an inquiry and submit a report. Accordingly he held a detailed inquiry and submitted a report on 28-11-1994 stating therein that RL-II Nos.112 and 583 in the names of Aal-e- Muhammad and Shah Muhammad had been altered by making forgeries in the record; that entries made in the names of Allah Daee were doubtful, bogus and forged and that fraud and forgery had been committed with the connivance of the revenue staff. In the light of the above report, the D.C. Passed the impugned order, dated 25-1-1995 and referred the case to the Secretary (S&R), Board of Revenue, Punjab for necessary action. The said order was challenged by Haji Murad Ali, respondent No,1 before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) who accepted the same and set aside the impugned order vide his order, dated 27-6-1995. The petitioners challenged it by way of a revision petition which was dismissed in limine by the Board of Revenue on 29-9-1996.
3.The petitioners' learned counsel strenuously urged that the reports available on the record clearly showed that Aal-e-Muhammad and Shah Muhammad were lawful owners of Khasra No,835 and that the entries made in their names vide Khata No,583 were tampered with and through fraud and forgeries Mst. Allah Daee was wrongly shown to be allottee of land vide Khata No,583; that Khasra No, 835 was wrongly included in the Khata No,654 of RL-II in the name of Mst. Hadayat Begum; that the said Khata was never confirmed in her name and that the District Collector vide his order, dated 25-1-1995 had rightly referred the case to the Board of Revenue because the disputed land was evacuee property and the Notified Officer was competent to go into the questions of fraud etc., and determine the question of title involved in the case.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No,1 urged that the impugned order of reference was rightly set aside by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) because the Notified Officer had the limited authority to decide pending cases or those cases which were remanded to him by the High Court and the Supreme Court and that no fresh proceedings could be entertained by the notified officer after the repeal of the settlement laws. In support of his contentions, he has relied on the following judgments:---
(1) Sher Afzal Khan and others v. Haji Razi Abdullah and others (1984 SCMR 228).
(2) Malik Shahab Din and 4 others v. Imdad Ali Ghallu A.D.C.(G), Bahawalpur and 7 others (1986 CLC 2194).
(3) Mst. Memona Begum v. State (PLD 1990 Rev. 8).
(4) Anjuman Falaho Bahbood Muhajreen v. Abdul Majeed (1991 CLC 1806).
(5) Zar Khan and 8 others v. Faqir Gul and 4 others (PLD 1993 Peshawar 39).
(6) M. Sharif and others v. M. Anis Nagi (1993 CLC 1123).
(7) Ghulam Muhammad v. Sardar Muhammad Aslam Sukhera and 4 others (1993 MLD 423).
5. After the repeal of the settlement laws the Notified Officer enjoys limited authority to decide the pending or remand cases as laid down under section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. It reads as under:--- "Upon the repeal of the aforesaid Acts and Regulations, all proceedings which immediately before such repeal, may be pending before the authorities appointed thereunder shall stand transferred for final disposal to such Officers as may be notified by the Provincial Government in the official Gazette and all cases decided by the Supreme Court or a High Court after such repeal which would have been remanded to any such authority in the absence of such repeal shall be remanded to the officers notified as aforesaid."
Obviously, the petitioners' case was not pending at the relevant time. Moreover, it was not remanded to the Notified Officer by the High Court or the Supreme Court. The Revenue Authorities or for that matter other Authorities are not clothed with the power to make a reference to the Notified Officer merely because the allotment/transfer of evacuee property appeared to be tainted with fraud or forgeries. The Notified Officer does not enjoy plenary powers like a Civil Court. This view finds support from the judgment in the case of "Sultan Hassan Khan and 2 others v.. Mst.
Nasim Jahan and 17 others" (1994 SCMR 150). The relevant part of the judgment is reproduced below:-- "The question therefore, to be considered would be whether forgery and fraud have been committed by the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest in obtaining PTD in his favour. Such question cannot be decided by the departmental authorities. Where question of fraud, forgery or misrepresentation is involved, unless specifically barred under law, the jurisdiction remains with the Civil Court to decide such issue."
' In the case of Sher Afzal Khan and others (relied upon by the respondents' learned counsel), it was held as under:--- "We do not see how, after the repeal of these laws, the authorities under the new dispensation that came into being under the repealing statute and under the new scheme promulgated in 1976, could undertake an enquiry in order to review and reopen such past and closed transactions. Even a case of fraud could be enquired into or adjudicated upon provided jurisdiction to exercise such power survives the repeal. No such provision was pointed out by the learned counsel. The exercise of jurisdiction was, therefore, palpably coram non judice and wholly incompetent."
6. In view of the above legal position, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders, dated 27-6-1995, 29-9-1996 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) and the Member, Board of Revenue respectively. The petitioners may, if so advised, file a civil suit for redress of their grievance. In case, any suit is filed by the petitioners, the same shall be independently decided by the Civil Court on merits in accordance with the law. The petition is dismissed in limine with the above observation.