By this single judgment I propose to dispose of Writ Petition No.5/R of 1993 and Writ Petition No.327/R of 1992 as both arise out of the same impugned order and the law point involved therein, is also identical.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Abdul Shakoor and Muhammad Farooq, respondents Nos. l and 2, sons of Ghulam Muhammad, resident of Mauza Alipur Chatha (Akalgarh) Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujranwala, submitted an application to Chief Settlement Commissioner for purchase of land measuring 313 Kanals and 3 Marlas situated in village Alipur, on the ground that it was lying uncultivated and had not been allotted against any claim and is available residual evacuee property. Report was called from the Revenue Officer Halqa who appeared alongwith record before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Chief Settlement Commissioner after perusal of the record and Jamabandi for the current year found that it was available evacuee land for disposal. Abdul Shakoor etc. Respondents offered to purchase it at the rate of average price of Rs.100 per P. I. U. The Revenue Officer placed on record average price of five years as 9,043 and that of three years as 8.9,348 per acre. Respondent No.3 Ch. Talib Hussain, the then Chief Settlement Commissioner, processed the case under section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act and issued notice to the Settlement Department. Ch. Muhammad Altaf, Advocate appeared on behalf of the Settlement Department and agreed for disposal of the land on payment of average price in lump sum. He also conceded jurisdiction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to dispose of the evacuee land under section 12 (ibid). Consequently, the Chief Settlement Commissioner accepted application of respondents Nos. l and 2 and transferred 313 Kanals and 3 Marlas to them on payment at the rate of Rs.9,348 per acre i.e. Three years average sale price per acre for a sum of Rs.3,66,000 to be deposited within a period of two weeks, vide his order, dated 18-10-1992.
3. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner- respondent No.3, on the ground that price of the disputed land is much higher but with the collusion of the revenue staff, chart of less average price was produced before respondent No.3.
The petitioner is prepared to pay Rs.50,000 per acre for the aforesaid land. He further submits that the land is urban agricultural and vests in the Provincial Government after repeal of the Act, w.e.f. 1- 7-1974. He offered to purchase the said land at the rate of Rs.50,000 per acre but his request was turned down by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that after 1-7-1974 the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act could not be exercised by him in view of Repeal of the Settlement Laws Act XIV of 1975. It is further argued that the entire urban agricultural land has been declared building site through Notification, dated 16-5-1973. The impugned order, is, therefore, void ab initio. The available evacuee property could only be disposed of under section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act XIV of 1975. It has been alleged that valuable Government property has been plundered by respondents Nos. l and 2 with the connivance of revenue staff and settlement department.
4. The petition was admitted on 9-1-1993. In response to the notice respondents Nos.1 and 2 have entered appearance through their counsel. However, none has appeared on behalf of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Parawise comments have been submitted by the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector, Gujranwala, in connected Writ Petition No.3?7/R of 1992. In reply to Grounds (ii) it is stated that the land in dispute has been declared as urban vide Notification No.DLG-88/A-III.T.C. Alipur Chatha/12271. It is also stated in the comments that there is a mistake in calculation of the correct average price. According to him the average price per acre is Rs.27,000.
5. --- Learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 submits that the residue property could be disposed of by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in any manner he liked. No objection was raised by the learned counsel representing the Settlement Department at the relevant time before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to question the cost of the land paid by them to the Settlement Department. He also submits that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person, therefore, this petition is not maintainable.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the relevant record with their assistance. Admittedly application of the respondents Nos. l and 2 was filed on 10-10-1992. The Revenue Officer and the record was summoned for 18-10-1992 and within eight days the whole proceedings were completed and valuable urban agricultural land measuring 313 Kanals and 3 Marlas was transferred to respondents Nos.1 and 2 at the rate of Rs.9,348 per acre. The haste shown by respondent No.3 in disposing of A application of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and calculation of average price at such a lower rate, gives an impression of collusion between u.--- respondents inter se. Such a quick disposal of application of respondents Nos. l and 2 by arranging production of record, the Revenue Officer and nomination of learned counsel for the Settlement Department, all create doubt and show special int-rest taken by respondent No.3 in disposal of the case. The impugned order does not appear to have been passed in normal circumstances or in routine. Offer of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.50,000 per acre of the disputed land was rejected and instead valuable property of the Government was sold at the rate of Rs.9,348 per acre. The Custodian of the Government Property has not safeguarded the interest of the state while selling it at such a cheap price, although much higher offer was available. The facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the impugned order was passed in a mala fide manner and by collusion of respondents inter se.
7. After repeal of the Settlement Laws, respondent No. 3 had no jurisdiction under section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act to g transfer the available property to respondents Nos. l and 2. Section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 provides as under: -- Upon 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."
Subsection (3) of section 2, further provides as follows: "Any proceedings transferred or remanded to an officer in pursuance of subsection (2) shall be disposed of by him in accordance with the' provisions of the Act or Regulations hereby repealed to which the proceedings relate."
8: Admittedly the application of respondents Nos. l and 2 was not pending before respondent No.3 at the time of repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. Respondent No.3 had absolutely no power under the Act to transfer the disputed land in favour of the contesting respondents. He could exercise his jurisdiction only in pending matters or in the cases which were remanded by the High Court or the Supreme Court. In the absence of aforesaid C circumstances, he had no authority whatsoever to transfer the property in favour of respondents Nos. l and 2. The residual evacuee property could only be transferred under section 3(a) and (b) of the Repealing Act which provides as under:-- (a)In the case of urban properties, by the Provincial Government under a scheme to be prepared by it in this behalf; and (b)in the case of rural properties, by the Board of Revenue of the Province under a scheme to be prepared by the Provincial Government in this behalf. "
The case of contesting respondents does not fall within any proviso to section 3 of the aforesaid Act. The Supreme Court of Pakistan in its latest judgment reported as Member Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore v. Rafaqat Ali 1998 SCM R 2596 has clearly laid down:-- "Unallotted agricultural land vested in Provincial Government against price paid for the same, therefore, disposal, thereof, had to take place according to Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977. "
The scheme was prepared by the Government in the year 1977 and all urban properties have been declared as building sites by means of Notification No.1697-73/1567-R(L), dated 16-5-1973. The impugned order was passed in flagrant violation of section 3 of Act XIV of 1975. Respondent No.3 had no jurisdiction to transfer the disputed property to respondents Nos.1 and 2 under section 12 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 having been) repealed as back as in the year 1974.
9. The objection of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the petitioner is not an aggrieved person and as such this petition is not maintainable, has no force. The petitioner has made an offer to purchase the disputed property at the rate of Rs.50,000 per acre which was rejected by respondent No. 3 and property was transferred to respondents Nos. l and 2 at a very low rate. The petitioner has, therefore, a very genuine grievance against E such an arbitrary and fanciful transfer. Moreover, plundering of public property through illegal, collusion and mala fide manner has come to the notice of Court, therefore, it is its duty to adopt measures for its protection from misappropriation by such persons. The objection of the respondents for aforesaid reasons has no substance and is repelled.
Resultantly the impugned order is declared as wholly without jurisdiction and consequently it, is hereby quashed. The disputed property shall F be resumed by the Provincial Government/Chief Settlement Commissioner for its disposal in accordance with section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. Both the writ petitions are allowed with costs.