' The dispute in this petition relates to land measuring 2 Kanals comprising Killa No,25/1, Square No,44 situated in Chak No,365/GB Kacha Gojra District T.T. Sindh. The petitioners claimed to be the allottee of the same since 25-11-1962 which was confirmed on 12-1-1963. One Muhammad Shahbaz Khan felt aggrieved of this and some other allotment and filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) exercising the powers under section 10(4) of the Land Settlement Act, 1958, on 13-7-1964. A. Revision petition was then filed which was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha Division on 9-2-1965. The successor of said Shehbaz Khan then filed Writ Petition No,543 of 1965 wherein the present petitioners were cited as respondents Nos.10 to 12. The writ petition was dismissed finally on 13-12-1973. A petition A for leave to appeal (C.P.L.A. No,302 of 1974) was filed there against which was dismissed on 28-10-1974. A review petition was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The dispute thus, should have ended and settled but it was not so, as Mutations Nos.1213 and 1214 though entered yet were rejected by the Assistant Collector-II in view of claim of respondents Nos.4 to 7 to the same piece of land. An appeal was filed there against by the petitioners which was accepted by the Assistant Commissioner/ Collector, T.T. Singh on 26-1-1980 with the direction to A.C.-II to attest the mutations in favour of the petitioners. This order was challenged by respondents Nos.4 to 7 in appeal which was then accepted on 29-1-1981 by Additional Commissioner, Sargodha Division who took the view that entry in Jamabandi in favour of respondents Nos.4 to 7 had remained intact and the party aggrieved should seek remedy from the Civil Court. The petitioners then filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue which was dismissed on 9-12-1982. This order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners has been challenged through this petition.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the disputed land had remained all along in litigation after its allotment in favour of the petitioners in the year 1962 which litigation ended with the dismissal of the petitioner for review by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21-12-1976, there was thus no occasion for its allotment in favour of respondents Nos.4 to 7, as the Department itself was party in the said litigation. According to him, the entries purported to have been made and existing in the Jamabandi in favour of the said respondents were without any lawful basis and could not create any right in them. It is further contended that the Revenue Authorities should have simply given effect to the judgment of this Court and the Supreme Court as was done by Assistant Commissioner/Collector, and the reversal of that order in appeal by the Additional Commissioner was not at all warranted. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed on Munawar Hussain, and others v. Messrs Nisar & Co. And others (1976 SCMR 239), Mst. Umar Bibi and another v.
Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office, Lahore and 3 others (PLD 1986 Lahore 109) and Wali Muhammad and others v. Settlement Commissioner (Land) and others (1982 CLC 816).
3. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents on the other hand contends that respondents Nos.4 to 7 had been shown as owners of the land in the Jamabandi over since 1964-65, they could not be deprived of the same as the particular piece of land was not subject-matter of litigation in the earlier round before this Court or the Supreme Court. According to him it is the Civil Court which could determine the respective rights of the parties and the view taken by the Additional Commissioner and the Board of Revenue is correct. He has referred to Major Riaz.Ahmad Rashid and others v. The State and others (1991 CLC 277) and Laeeq Ahmad and another v. Maqsood Ahmad and another (1991 SCMR 465) to support his contention.
4. In his order, dated 26-1-1980, Assistant Commissioner/Collector after taking note of the previous litigation recorded finding as follows:-- "I have heard the arguments and very carefully perused the record, an attested copy of the order of ADC (G), Lyallpur dated 13-7-1964 clearly mentioned Square,, No,44, Killa No,25/1 area 2 Kanals and the names of the appellants as respondents in that area. A memo. Of appeal, an attested copy of which has been produced by the appellants, also mentions the land in dispute which is the subject-matter of this appeal. A photostat copy of Annexure C/I filed in the writ petition also shows that names of the appellants Ibrahim, etc., and the description of the land in dispute.
' The documentary evidence mentioned above is a positive proof of the fact that the land in dispute comprising Square No,44, Killa No,25/1 measuring 2 Kanals, 4 Marlas had been the subject- matter of litigation in various Courts up to the Supreme Court between successors-in-interest of Shahbaz Khan temporary allottees of this land and the appellants. It appears that during the long period of this litigation the respondents managed to get this land allotted in their names and thus became owners of the land in dispute as mentioned and the copies of the Registrar Hadqadaran Zamin produced in this case. Any order under the circumstances when the dispute of allotment of land in favour of the appellants remained the subject-matter of litigation in different Courts was ab initio void and of no effect. Moreover, the respondents have not been able to prove that this land was in fact duly allotted to them. Entries in the Register Haqdaran Zamin are riot supported by any documentary evidence."
' In order to satisfy myself as to whether this particular piece of land was subject-matter of the previous litigation, I have sent for the file of Writ Petition No,543 of 1965. There is a statement (Annex.
C/1) showing detail of area allotted to the respondent therein annexed with that petition. The petitioners herein were then respondents Nos.10 to 12 in that petition and were shown to have been allotted "Killa No,25/1 of Square No,44, Area 2 Kanals". (This document was shown to the learned counsel for the parties who have inspected the file in the Court). There remains thus, no doubt whatsoever, that this Particular piece of land has been subject-matter of litigation and the allotment in favour of the present petitioners was upheld by the Courts and remained intact. There was thus, absolutely no basis for any entry in Jamabandi made in favour of respondents Nos.4 to 7 unless it could be shown by them that the allotment made in favour of the present petitioners had been cancelled and they were allotted the same. Nothing has however, been brought on record to this effect.
5. Whether respondents Nos.4 to 7 were party in the earlier round of litigation or not would not make any difference as they have failed to show any order of allotment in their favour. The entries made in the Jamabandi were thus, without any valid basis. Reference may be made to Syed Murid Hussain Shah v. Mufti Muhammad Yousaf Ali and another (1974 SCMR 8) somewhat similar situation had arisen in that case. There was a contest between two contestants for the property which matter went up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of-Pakistan and was decided in favour of respondent No,1 therein upholding the transfer in his favour. The transfer was sought to be re- opened after the conclusion of first round of litigation. The case of the petitioners therein was that he was not party to the litigation in the earlier round of litigation and was thus, not bound by the same. In this background, it was observed by their Lordships as follows:-- "Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before us that the petitioner not being a party to the earlier proceeding initiated by Mr. M.A. Ansari, was not bound by any order made in that litigation and that the petitioner was claiming transfer of the portion of the property in dispute in his own right by virtue of his possession under a valid allotment in his favour. The argument however, overlooks the fact that the earlier litigation also related to the property in dispute to which the Settlement Authority was a party. In that litigation the transfer of the property in dispute in favour of respondent No,1 was ultimately upheld by this Court, on a point which was plainly a point of law and a decision on a law point by this Court, under the Constitution is binding on all Courts and authorities in Pakistan, it was highly improper for Chief Settlement Commissioner to have directed the review of the matter suo motu notwithstanding the earlier decision by this Court."
' Almost similar position obtains in this case inasmuch as the petitioners had contested and fought for the allotment of the disputed piece of land up to the Supreme Court and it was upheld. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which is final for all intents and purposes and has a binding effect on all. Its efficacy cannot be impaired by taking an erroneous view of the matter by the Revenue Authorities. I find that the approach of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector in the matter was eminently correct and legal whereas the view of learned Additional Commissioner who attached extra importance to the entries in the Jamabandi was not warranted in the circumstances of the case. The petitioners had been litigating for this piece of land ever since the allotment which as mentioned earlier ended with the judgment of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. There was no justification for a direction to launch another round of litigation over again. It was simply a matter of implementation of the judgment of the Court which had to be given effect to. Accordingly, the order of the learned Member, Board of Revenue whereby he affirmed the order of learned Additional Commissioner is not sustainable in law. The same is declared as of no legal effect.
' In view of the above, this petition is accepted. No order as to costs.