' MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, .J---This appeal, by way of leave, is directed against an order passed by the High Court on 20-9-1997, whereby the writ petition filed by Muhammad Sharif and others, respondents herein, was accepted and the impugned orders were set aside.
2. The precise facts, culminating into the present appeal are that respondents Muhammad Sharif and others filed an earlier writ petition in the High Court on November 4, 1984, claiming therein that they were owners of the land measuring 187 Kanals, 12 Marlas, situate in village Malikan Siongri, Baichiragh Chak Pandit and Manawar, Tehsil Bhimber, including the Shamilat land in their possession. It was also averred in the writ petition that land measuring 900 Kanals was also purchased by them and that the allotment of the land made in favour of appellants, herein, was assailed through the writ petition as being illegal and without jurisdiction under the provisions of Chhamb Area Administration and Development Act, 1976 (thereinafter to be referred as Chhamb Act). The provisions of the Act were also challenged as being ultra vires of the Constitution and of no legal effect.
' During the pendency of the writ petition, the Chhamb Act was amended by way of incorporating an amendment in section 3-A of the Act. The High Court in view of the amendment of section 3-A directed the respondents to agitate the matter before, the Deputy Commissioner Settlement/ Rehabilitation Commissioner Iftikharabad as provided under the amended provisions of the said Act. The respondents consequently filed their application before the Deputy Commissioner Settlement/Rehabilitation Commissioner, Iftikharabad which was summarily rejected on March 29, 1989. An appeal filed before the Rehabilitation Commissioner met the same fate and was also dismissed on July 4, 1995. The above orders were assailed through a subsequent writ petition before the High Court.
3. The High Court observed that during the pendency of the previous writ petition after noticing the relevant amendment in the Chhamb Act, the learned Chief Justice passed the following order:- "In view of the aforesaid amendment, the petitioner is provided with a new forum to seek redress of his grievance raised in the present writ petition. It is agreed between the learned counsel for the parties that in presence of the changed legal position, the petitioners have to avail the adequate remedy made available to them in the form and shape of section 3-A of the aforesaid Act. I, therefore, hold that the point agitated in the writ petition can adequately be settled by competent Authority concerned having special jurisdiction in the matter under the provisions of the law holding the field. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of accordingly . "
4. The respondents in view of the direction made by the learned Chief Justice moved their application before the respondent No,2 (Deputy Commissioner Settlement/ Rehabilitation, Iftikharabad) who dismissed the application on the ground that their counsel could not produce before him the relevant Ordinance and thus, did not proceed under the relevant provisions of law which was also dismissed on the ground that the respondent filed similar application earlier before the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner which was dismissed and an appeal filed against the aforesaid order was disallowed on July 22, 1985. A review petition filed before the Rehabilitation Commissioner too was dismissed on August 3, 1985. It was also observed by Rehabilitation Commissioner that no new inquiry was required in presence of earlier enquiry conducted in 1983.
The High Court went on observing that both the respondents passed their orders mechanically and without applying their judicial mind to the relevant direction. According to the High Court, it was the duty of both the counsel for the respective parties to place the relevant law before the Presiding Officers but at the same time the Presiding Officers were also expected to be in the knowledge of the relevant law as such the writ petition, as stated earlier, was accepted and the case was remanded to Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner to proceed in accordance with the direction made by the High Court on February 12, 1987.
5. Mr. Muhammad Riaz Tabassum, the learned counsel for the appellants, vehemently contended that under section 3 of the Chhamb Act respondents could not prove their ownership in the land and the evacuee land was rightly allotted to the appellants. The learned counsel also maintained that the writ petition filed before the High Court was suffering from laches but the learned Judge in the High Court did not attend to the said point in its true perspective. The direction given by the High Court, according to the learned counsel, would not advance the ends of justice rather the same would tantamount to prolong the litigation between the parties.
6. Mr. Abdul Latif Dutt and Raja Muhammad Siddique Khan, the learned counsel for the respondents, by controverting the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, fully defended the impugned judgment passed by the High Court. The learned counsel pressed into service the submission that in the previous round of litigation the relevant amendment was not holding the field as such any useful inquiry could have been effectively made by the Deputy Commissioner Settlement/ Rehabilitation Commissioner.
7. We have given our due consideration to the arguments addressed at the Bar and perused the relevant record. At the very outset we do not agree with the contention raised by Mr. Muhammad Riaz Tabassum, the learned counsel for the appellants that previously a thorough inquiry was held by all the Rehabilitation Authorities and the respondents failed to substantiate their claim. In presence of the first inquiry a further inquiry would tantamount to prolong the litigation and hamper the ends of justice. The aforesaid argument is without any substance. In our view, at the time of first inquiry the relevant forum was not available as section 3-A of the Chhamb Act of 1976, was amended during the pendency of previous writ petition and it was introduced through Ordinance, dated November 4, 1984. The relevant amendment for the sake of convenience is reproduced below:--- "(1) Subject to other provisions of the Act, and within the prescribed time, any person claiming himself to be owner of any part of the land in the area, may by petition to the Deputy Commissioner, ask for a declaration that he is owner of such part of the land and that land to that extent is not available for allotment.
(2) On receipt of such petition, which must be accompanied by authentic documents, proof or record, the Deputy Commissioner shall consider such material and may hold further inquiry into the matter as he may deem fit. After completion of the inquiry the Deputy Commissioner if satisfied, may subject to any other law in force pass an order declaring the person as owner of the land claimed on such terms and conditions as he may deem fit or reject the petition as a whole or in part.
(3) If the claimant has received any claim in lieu of the land he had left on migration of which declaration has been made under this Act or obtained any allotment in Azad Jammu and Kashmir or in Pakistan, the claim found due shall be reduced to the extent of the claim so received or the allotment. The land for which the claim is reduced under sub-clause (3) shall absolutely vest in the Government free from all encumbrances and shall be available for allotment."
8. The learned Chief Justice of High Court as said earlier directed the respondents to avail their remedy before the new forum. In compliance of the said direction the respondents moved the relevant Authorities who dismissed the application/appeal and review petition on flimsy grounds that the amended Act could not be produced before them by either of the parties. It is noted with regret that where there is duty of the learned counsel for the parties to produce the relevant law before the Presiding Officers similarly a duty is cast upon the Presiding Officers to be abreast of the relevant law. The excuse or pretext mentioned in their orders do not justify the performance of their duties. In this view of the matter the High Court committed no error in accepting the wit petitions filed by the respondents and remanding the case to the Deputy Commissioner Settlement/Rehabilitation, Iftikharabad to comply the relevant directions and to proceed in accordance with law.
' Since the matter has already undergone the agony of many years of litigation, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner, Settlement/Rehabilitation Commissioner, Iftikharabad shall hold the inquiry and complete the same within a period of 3 months from the date of this judgment. The appeal, therefore, having no merits in it is hereby dismissed with no order as to the costs.