The petitioner's predecessor-in-interest purchased property bearing Khasra Nos.5401/5402 and Survey No.S-31-R-115 in open auction held on 5-7-1961. The appeal was filed by Muhammad Din respondent No.4 challenging the auction which was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 16-6-1962. This order was assailed through Writ Petition No.1191/R of 1962 which was dismissed on 2- 1-1963. L.P.A. No.134 of 1962 also met the same fate and was dismissed on 3-4-1964. C.P. No.235 of 1964 filed before the Supreme Court was also dismissed on 2-2-1965. Review Petition No.1065 of 1965 was dismissed on 11-10-1965. P.T.O. Was issued on 16-11-1964 in favour of the petitioner after depositing the amount and other dues. Thereafter T.O. Was also issued on 23-2-1974 in his favour.
Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.117/R of 1991 challenging the inquiry proceedings started against him by an order of the then Chief Minister. That writ petition was withdrawn on 10-9-1995. Against the withdrawal of the said writ petition, Muhammad Din, respondent filed a Review Petition No.95 of 1995 which was dismissed. After dismissal of Review Petition Muhammad Din, respondent No.4 filed Writ Petition No. 121/R of 1996 which was finally withdrawn `by the said respondent. The respondent again submitted an application to the Chief Minister for redressal of his grievance upon which a fresh inquiry was ordered. A notice was issued to the petitioner which has been assailed in the present Constitutional petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to ground (vi) of his writ petition to contend that, the then Chief Minister Mian Manzoor Wattoo issued a directive (the same has been reproduced in para. (vi) of the writ petition) wherein it was directed that possibility of an action against Muhammad Din for deliberate misrepresentation of facts may kindly be examined. Learned counsel submits that ]n the same directive it was, however, desired by the then Chief Minister that the Board of Revenue may not reopen this case again in future and any application or proceeding on this account against the applicant pending in the Department may be filed under intimation to this Secretariat as well as the applicant. Learned counsel has submitted that in spite of clear direction respondents Nos.1 and 2 have again started an inquiry against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that at this stage no fresh inquiry can be conducted because the controversy having already been decided up to Supreme Court of Pakistan and the matter being past and closed chapter cannot be reopened through the administrative order. Learned counsel has pointed out that findings already recorded against respondent No.4 to the effect that firstly no C.S. Form was submitted by him and secondly permanent construction has been raised over the property in dispute by the petitioner so respondent had no locus standi to challenge the auction proceedings. After repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 with effect from 1-7-1974, no inquiry can be conducted even by the Notified Officer or by the Chief Executive of the Province or any other public functionary as the matter having become past and closed transaction the same cannot be reopened at this stage on any ground.
2. Conversely respondent No.4, who is present in person has submitted that the plot measuring 11 Marlas 60 Sq, feet was auctioned. The auction purchaser who was declared successful in the auction proceedings never deposited the requisite amount and auction was cancelled from his name. It is further submitted that the said Din Muhammad after issuance of P.T.D. Withdrew his compensation book and the same was cancelled in the year 1961. It is further submitted that the property was never purchased in auction by the present petitioner as according to the record available with the Settlement Department the auction was made in favour of Din Muhammad son of Shamas Din. Concluding his arguments, respondent has submitted that if the petitioner proves from the record that there was any auction in his favour, he is ready to forego his right.
3. Mr. Sabir Hussain Shah, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the Settlement Department and submitted that the proceedings have been initiated by respondent No.2 on some directive issued by the Chief Minister. When asked as to whether after repeal of the Settlement Laws, can such-like proceedings be initiated on an executive order, the learned counsel has failed to answer this question and has frankly conceded that no proceedings can be initiated. ,4. In view of the detailed arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Settlement Department and respondent No.4 and after going through the record it stands established that the property in dispute stands transferred in the name of the petitioner. It is also on the record that the petitioner obtained possession of the plot in 1963 from the Settlement Department after ejectment of respondent No.4 under section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 which order was challenged by respondent No.4 by way of filing an appeal which was dismissed. Revision of the respondent also failed and as such the order of ejectemnt attained finality. Petitioner after getting the plan sanctioned from the Municipal Authority, constructed a four storeyed commercial building and since then he is in exclusive possession as owner of the same. The Transfer Order (T.O.) has also been issued in favour of the petitioner. After issuance of P.T.O. And T.O., the Settlement Authorities have become functus officio and they are not competent to proceed-and reopen the case. Even on the executive side no proceedings can be taken because earlier Chief Minister of Punjab issued a directive not to reopen this case again in future. Despite that clear direction, respondent No.4, it appears, again by suppressing material facts, succeeded in obtaining favourable order from the Chief Minister Punjab on the basis of which the present proceeding started against the petitioner. As already observed, no authority vests in the Department after repeal of Settlement Laws, to reopen the matters which have finally been decided and has become past and closed transaction in all respects. This writ petition is accepted. Resultantly the proceedings pending before respondents Nos.2 and 3 are declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the same are quashed with no order as to costs.