' A round of litigation between the parties had ended with the dismissal of a review petition on 4-11- 1980 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The present litigation is an off shoot thereof, the necessary background whereof is briefly stated below.
' Land measuring 94 Kanals, 10 Marlas comprising Kilas Nos. 3, 4, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15/2, 16, 17, 18 and 21 of Sqaure No,48 situated in Chak No,44 N.B. Sargodha was allotted to Muhammad Shafi, Muhammad Siddique and Muhammad Rafique sons of Rehmat Ullah on 7-7-1960. They are now represented through their successors respondents Nos.2 to 25 herein. Maulvi Abdul Aziz (the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners) who himself was a claimant displaced person filed an appeal there against which was accepted partly by D.R.C. (L) Sargodha on 1-3-1961 on the basis of concession and understanding between the parties whereby the respondents offered to 'surrender Kilas Nos.13 to 16 measuring 36 Kanals and 2 Kanals out of Kila No,17". It was accordingly observed that the "rest of the land will remain intact in the name of the respondents". This order was appealed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents which was accepted by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (lands) Sargodha on 21-1-1963. Maulvi Abdul Aziz then preferred a revision petition which was accepted by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sargodha on 16-4-1966 restoring the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Writ Petition No,713-R of 1966 was filed by the respondents whereas Maulvi Abdul Aziz had filed Writ. Petition No,1082-R of 1966. On 20-2-1974 a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed Writ Petition No,713- R of 1966 on merits whereas Writ Petition No,1082-R of 1966 was disposed of as having abated. Both parties had filed petitions before the Supreme Court of Pakistan C.P.L.A. No,924 of 1974 filed by the respondents was dismissed on 11-2-1977 maintaining the order of Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 1-3-1961 whereas C.P. 'No,52 of 1975 filed by, Maulvi Abdul Aziz was dismissed as infructuous. Civil Review Petition No,22-R 1977 was then filed by the respondents which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on 4-11-1980. In the process of implementation, Mutation Nos.15618 and 15619 were attested by the Assistant Collector on 7-7-1993 mutating land measuring 34 Kanal, 5 Marlas in favour of the petitioners. The respondents filed appeals thereabout which were dismissed by the Collector Sadar Sub-Division, Sargodha on 10-11- 1993 being barred by. Time. They filed revision petitions which were dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Sargodha Division on 5-4-1994. They then approached the Board of Revenue in revision petition which have been disposed of by the learned Member Board of Revenue setting aside the orders impugned before him observing that matter should have been taken to the Notified Officer appointed by the Provincial Government under The Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. This was vide order dated 26-2-1995 which has been challenged through this petition.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that so far as the matter of allotment was concerned, the same had concluded with the decision of the Supreme Court in the earlier round of litigation, it was merely a matter of implementation and updating of the Revenue. Record which was to be carried out by the Revenue Authorities and it was in this context that mutations were entered which exercise according to him was fully justified under the law. Reference has been made to Ali Ahmad and another v. Muhammad Fazal and another PLD 1973 Lah. 207; Muhammad Roshan v. Deputy Commissioner and Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) and others 1986 MLD 837; Mst. Umar Bibi and another v. Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office, Lahore and 3 others PLD 1986 Lah. 109 and Sherin and 4 others v. Fazal Muhammad and 4 others 1995 SCMR 584.
The learned counsel for the contesting respondents as also for the Department support the order passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue and contend that there was a long delay in seeking the implementation of the orders passed in the previous round, and it was only the Notified Officer under the Repealing law which could have passed any order in the matter. It is contended that even the entitlement of the petitioners was to be worked out and examined by the Notified Officer.
3. The tenor and import of order dated 1-3-1961 passed in appeal by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner would show that Kilas Nos.13 to 16 and 2 Kanal out of Kila No,17 were surrendered by the predecessor in-interest of the respondents in favour of Maulvi Abdul Aziz whereas the remaining land had to remain with them. Although that order was set aside by the Additional Settlement Commissioner yet the learned Settlement Commissioner vide his order, dated 16-4- 1966 had restored the order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner. The respondents had failed before this Court in their writ petition as also before the Supreme Court of Pakistan when their petition for leave was dismissed and also the review petition on 4-11-1980. Thus, the order of learned Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 1-3-1961 had remained intact and attained finality with the conclusion of litigation referred to above.
4. Section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 would have come into play only if the matter would have been remanded by the High Court or the Supreme Court after the repeal of the Settlement Laws. No such remand order had been passed by either of the Supreme Courts which could have attracted the application of subsection (2) of section 2 of the Act. The Notified Officer exercises jurisdiction only in proceedings falling within the ambit of subsection (2) of the section 2 of the Act (ibid). The present was a case of merely implementation of the lis having already been concluded. No adjudication was required or warranted. It was execution of the order only which was to be carried out by making necessary correction/entries in the Revenue Record. This is besides the fact that in pursuance of the order passed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on 16-4-1966 confirmation of allotment had been made which order has been reproduced in the order of the learned Member Board of Revenue, but the same has been countermanded by him noting that the signatures of the Chairman Allotment Committee were not there. It may be observed that at no stage, the confirmation had been disputed by the respondents in the earlier round of litigation. A new plea could not be introduced at this stage. With the restoration of order dated 1-3-1961, the rights of the parties stood determined and crystallized. Any effort by any of the parties or any functionary which could have the effect of impairing or eroding the efficacy of the lis concluded by the Supreme Court cannot be countenanced. At this juncture, a reference may be made to under mentioned passage from order dated 4-11-1980 whereby the review petition of the respondents was dismissed by their Lordships that "the petitioners had settled their dispute before Rao Ashfaq Ali Khan on 1-3-1961, and he took us through the relevant orders in which it was stated that the parties had entered into 'some sort of compromise". There is no magic in words, and the expression some sort of compromise' was a loose expression which could have been avoided. However, this does not alter the fact that Rao Ashfaq Ali Khan as well as the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner held that the dispute between the parties had been compromised after an examination of the evidence. Therefore, we reaffirm our view that the High Court rightly held that the petitioners could not repudiate the agreement made by them before Rao Ashfaq Ali Khan on 1-3-1961". Such observations appearing in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan were binding on the parties and are entitled to greatest respect and regard which reiterated that order dated 1-3-1961 was a consent and compromise arrangement between the parties. What the petitioners had sought was the implementation thereof whereas the respondents by re-agitation the matter up to the Board of Revenue were endeavouring to avoid the implementation and effect of the same. In the context, the authority or the functionary was not relevant. It was merely the updating of the record which was undertaken by those who have to maintain the Revenue Record. As observed above, Notified Officer had nothing to do as section 2(2) of the Act was not applicable. In section 4 of the Act, Board of Revenue finds mention for certain purposes. The matter had eventually reached the Board, when the learned Member set aside the orders passed by this subordinates, he could have been keeping in view the true perspective of the matter avoided interference. Otherwise, the parties would be entangled in yet another round of litigation, a wholly futile exercise. Suffice it to observe that technicalities should not impede the dispensation of justice or mar the rights flowing from the determination made by the highest Court of the country.
5. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents has tried to dispute the entitlement of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Such an assertion and plea, however, cannot be entertained as order, dated 1-3-1961 passed by Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner was a compromise arrangement and upheld by their Lordships of Supreme Court of Pakistan. The question of entitlement cannot be re-opened now to frustrate the finality and conclusive nature of the orders passed in the earlier round of litigation up to Supreme Court of Pakistan.
' For the above reasons, this petition is accepted declaring the order passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue, dated 26-2-1995 as unlawful and of no legal effect. No order as to costs.