' The brief facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that petitioner No,1 being claimant displaced person from Muradabad, India, got claim, bearing registration No,4624, verified on 21-6- 1958 by the Claims Officer, Lahore. On the basis of this verification, entitlement certificate No,894/307 for 6386 P.I. Units, was issued in his favour on 21-11-1959. On revised scheme certificate M.R.V. Bearing No,514/B/899/115 for 2116 P.I. Units was issued on 26-9-1961 which was declared as final entitlement of petitioner No,1. In lieu of his claim, petitioner No,1 was allotted land in urban area of Lahore. By an order dated 21-9-1971/22-9-1971 certain modifications were made by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Lahore whereby units of the claimant were rendered surplus. The allotment of petitioner No,1 was challenged by way of filing a Mukhbari application by one Muhammad Rafique on 20-11-1976. After conducting a detailed inquiry and after examining the original record of verification of claim as well as record of Patwari concerned, the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) with power of Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 28-2-1978 while dismissing the Mukhbari' application held that the claim of the petitioner had been rightly verified and the allotments obtained by him were not beyond his entitlement, and that there was no excess allotment. After completing all the formalities by the petitioner his name was incorporated in the relevant record as confirmed allottee. Petitioners Nos.2 to 5 purchased some land through registered sale-deed and mutation of sale was sanctioned in the name of vendees. One Muhammad Ijaz against whom a criminal case was got registered by the petitioner filed a 'Mukhbari' application on 12-3-1983 before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, which was entrusted to Settlement Commissioner. The petitioners appeared before the learned Settlement Commissioner and filed written objections challenging the jurisdiction of the said officer, but no decision was taken on the preliminary objection raised by the petitioners. Hence, this Constitutional' petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that after repeal of Settlement Laws no jurisdiction is left with the Settlement Department to re-open the case which attained finality as only the pending proceedings were saved under section 2(2) of the Repealed Act XIV of 1975, no such application can be entertained as the case is not covered and cannot be termed as pending proceedings. It is further submitted that once proceedings have been conducted under sections 10 and 11, and finally decided by the Competent Authority, no second 'Mukhbari' application is competent in respect of the same subject-matter.
3. Conversely, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Settlement Department has contended that the application was not under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement)
Act, 1958, but it was simply a Miscellaneous application submitted before the Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner because the allotment obtained by the petitioners was in excess of their entitlement and inquiry is being conducted as certain allegation of fraud have been levelled.
4. I have gone through the report and comments submitted by the Settlement Commissioner (Land)/Inquiry Officer, wherein in para. 5 it has been admitted that a 'Mukhbari' application against the petitioners was decided by Ch. Riyasat Ali, the then Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) vide his order dated 28-2-1978, but in reply to para. 10, it is submitted that it was an application in which serious allegations of fraud were made. The objection raised by the petitioners was overruled and the inquiry was conducted. In reply to ground (a) it has been mentioned:-- "Only inquiry was held into certain allegations raised against his allotment. The report was submitted to the Secretary (Rural) but so far no final order has been passed on it. The Secretary (Rural) has sent back the case for further inquiry which is still pending."
' In reply to ground (b) it is further submitted:-- "The Miscellaneous application contained certain legations which needed enquiry."
5. After repeal of the Settlement Laws the Settlement Authorities have become functus officio and have got no jurisdiction to reopen the case which attained finality. The petitioner No,1 having secured the allotment against his verified claim, which was subsequently confirmed and incorporated as such in the relevant Revenue Record, the Chief Settlement Commissioner has got no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against the confirmed allotment on a Miscellaneous application after the repeal of Settlement Laws. The learned Settlement Commissioner had also not adverted to the fact that earlier Mukhbari Application filed against the petitioner was decided by the delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 28-2-1978. A specific finding was recorded in favour of the petitioner whereby his allotment was declared as genuine. It has been held in PLD 1958 SC 201:-- "This express limitation is a salutary check and it was not the intention of the Legislature that a refugee to whom some property had been allotted for his rehabilitation should constantly live in a state of uncertainty or at the mercy of the authorities who may succeed one another "
' It cannot be over-stressed that a decision come to properly and after hearing the parties carries sanctity and both public and administrative considerations should not be lightly interfered with."
' It has also been held in Sher Afzal Khan and others v. Haji Razi Abdullah and others (1984 SCMR 228):-- "P.T.D. Issued in favour of the first respondent covered the whole property which remained in the field until the repeal of the Settlement Laws, which accordingly was a past and closed transaction.
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. "
' It is also held in Farman Ali v. Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar (PLD 1984 Karachi 62) that: 'A: no proceedings were pending on 1-7-1974, case of allotment of the lands in question to the petitioner could not be reopened by the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar. Learned counsel for the petitioner had cited Muhammad Younus v. Muhammad Younus Khan, which supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that case could not be reopened by the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar after 1-7-1974 as no proceedings were pending on 1-7-1974 in respect of the lands of the petitioner."
As already mentioned, in the present case admittedly no proceedings were pending against the petitioner's allotment at the time of the repeal of Settlement Laws and the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner without any legal justification, on a miscellaneious application, started the inquiry into the genuineness or otherwise of the claim of the petitioners which authority does not vest in him. Respectfully following the dictum laid down in the above cited case, this writ petition is allowed and the proceedings before respondent No,2 are declared as coram non judice, without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the same are quashed. The parties shall bear their own costs.