The dispute relates to Property bearing No.248/B-14 situated in Jhang Town Saddar which was transferred to the petitioner on 30-9-1966. In consequence whereof a P.T.O. Was issued in his name.
The transfer order was challenged by Gul Anar and others through an appeal which was dismissed by Additional Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha on 2-11-1967. Revision petition filed against the abovesaid order was. Also dismissed by Settlement Commissioner vide his order, dated 20-4-1970 and thereafter Permanent Transfer Deed was issued in favour of the petitioner on 2-7-1970.
2. After obtaining the transfer deed, the petitioner filed an ejectment petition against Gul Anar and others which was accepted by Rent Controller, Jhang on 25-6-1976.. Gul Anar etc. Filed an appeal against the abovesaid order which was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Jhang on 1-12-1976.
This judgment was assailed before this Court in S.A.O. No.698 of 1977 which also met with the same fate and was dismissed on 27-7-1980. In execution proceedings pending before Rent Controller, Jhang, Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Jhang-respondent No.2 submitted an application to the effect that the property in question is an evacuee trust property and the ejectment order be declared to be null and void. The Deputy Administrator also filed a reference under sections 8 and 10 of Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act No.XIII of 1975 before Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board to declare the property in dispute as an evacuee trust property and further for the cancellation of its transfer from the name of petitioner. The learned Chairman vide his order, dated 9-9-1982 declared the property in dispute as an evacuee trust property and its transfer in the name of petitioner was cancelled. Meanwhile the execution petition filed by the petitioner before the Rent Controller was dismissed on 30-5-1983. The present Constitutional petition has been directed against the order, dated 9-9-1982 passed by Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, Government of Pakistan, Lahore and the order, dated 30-5-1983 passed by Civil Judge, Jhang.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that before passing the impugned order, respondent No.1 did not provide any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, this being so the order is violative of natural justice and is not sustainable; .That the case of the petitioner is covered under section 10(b) and the Chairman in not invalidating the transfer in favour of petitioner has committed illegality as the P.T.D. Stands issued in favour of the petitioner; that the Rent Controller was not competent to entertain the objection petition, thus, both the order impugned are nullity in the eye of law.
4. Conversely, Ch. Fazal-e-Hussain, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2, contended that despite service of notice petitioner did not appear before respondent No. l and he was rightly proceeded against ex parte. The order suffers from no illegality. It is further contended that the petitioner failed to avail alternate remedy of filing revision petition as (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975, therefore, the present writ petition is not competent.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
6. The perusal of the order passed by Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board shows that Faqir Muhammad, the present petitioner was proceeded against ex parte on 10-6-1981 as he refused to receive notice, therefore, the arguments of the Jeamed counsel that the petitioner was not provided any opportunity of hearing is not correct. The petitioner came to know about the order dated 9-9-1982 during the execution proceedings which was pending before the learned Rent Controller but even then he did not make any effort or challenge the same before any competent forum. Admittedly, the P.T.D. Was issued in favour of the petitioner on 2-7-1970 i.e. After the target date as provided under section 10(b) of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal)
Act, 1975, therefore, the transfer made in favour of the petitioner could not be validated. As held in Mst. Maryam Bai and others v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others 1993 SCM R 515, "that section 10 would not be attracted to cases in which only P.T.O. (and not a P.T.D.) was issued prior to June; 1968 even after full payment of the price". Meaning thereby, that for the purpose of transfer, the permanent transfer deed must have been issued prior to June, 1968. Therefore, the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board was justified in not validating the transfer of the petitioner,. The Rent Controller rightly dismissed the execution petition filed by the petitioner, therefore, the orders, dated 9-9-1.982 passed by Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board and order, dated 30-5-1983 passed by Civil .Judge 1st Class, Jhang are just and proper and cannot be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction. The petitioner, however, may seek his remedy before appropriate forum, if so, advised. This petition has no merit and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.