This is petition by the Province of Punjab whereby order dated 24-12-1992 passed by respondent No,2 has been assailed. It arises in the background briefly stated below. Respondent No,1 who claimed to be a displaced person having entitlement for 24037 Produce Index Units had filed a Writ Petition No,191-R of 1992 that "a direction may kindly he issued to the respondents to make allotment to the petitioner in lieu of his pending 6677 P.L. Units out of available land in the area of Lahore or elsewhere." It was his case that he had secured allotment to the extent of 17360 units and had balance unsatisfied units of 6677. The said writ petition was disposed of b this Court on 10-10-1992. In view of the statement made 'by the learned Advocate- General, Punjab, that a "direction may be issued to the learned Notified Officer to dispose of the application of the petitioner on its merits according to law. The learned counsel for the petitioner agrees with the suggestion made by the learned Law Officer. In the circumstances, a direction shall issue to respondent No,1 to see to it that application of the petitioner is disposed of by the concerned Notified Officer as early as possible preferably within one month." 'It was in this context that respondent No,2 Ch. Talib Hussain. the then Member Board of Revenue, Punjab/Chief Settlement Commissioner proceeded to allot and confirm the land in dispute in favour of respondent No,1 through the impugned order.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that no allotment could be made after the repeal of the law as it was not a matter "pending" at the time of repeal of the law nor could so be construed by respondent No,2 who acted without jurisdiction in making allotment to respondent No,1 in the matter.
3. Respondent No,1 has already been proceeded ex parte where respondent No,2 has also remained unrepresented today.
4. According to the view taken by respondent No,2 in the impugned order, respondent No,1 had 6641 balance units which had not been satisfied so far. Proceedings on that premises and the conceding statement made on behalf of the department, it was observed by him that "the case of the petitioner is, therefore, fully covered by section 2 (2) of (Act XIV of 1975) and he is entitled to seek allotment against his pending units. According to statements of Patwaris of villages Rai (Arain) and Halloki, District Lahore, evacuee land measuring 113 Kanals and 19 Marlas equivalent to 662 units and 164 Kanals 19 Marlas equivalent to 1320 units, is still lying available in village Rai (Arain) and Halloki, respectively. The detailed Khasra-wise and' 'Goshwara' of units have also been placed on record by these Patwaries. 1'his available area is. Therefore hereby allotted and confirmed to the' petitioner against his 1982 pending units. `Parchi Taq seem Khatunis' of these allotments have been prepared and duly signed by the undersigned. This order was passed on 24- 12-1992.
5. The point that emerges is whether respondent No,2 acted lawfully in treating the case of respondent No,1 as of pending "proceedings" which could fall under section 2 (2) of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 (Act XIV of 1975). The effect of the repeal of the law by Act, XIV of 1975 came up for, consideration before the Honourable Supreme Court in number of cases. In Syed Saifullah v. Board of. Revenue, Balochistan through its Members (RJT), and 4 others (1991 SCM R 1255). It was observed that "with the repeal of the Evacuee Laws in 1975, the unallotted agricultural land vested in the Provincial Government against price paid for it.
Thereafter, its disposal had to take place according to the Scheme to be framed by the Provincial Government. The Scheme framed by the Provincial Government made no provision for allotments to be made against the pending verified Produce Index Units. For this reason the allotment made after 1975 in favour of the persons from whom the appellant was claiming, was wholly without jurisdiction and lacking in authority. Notwithstanding that it was made on the direction of the Board of Revenue, it could not be recognized in law nor could it be allowed to stand on record. It was void ab initio. Consequently, its removal even by an illegal order would not suffer from any infirmity but would rather re-establish the legal and the correct status of the property. On this view of the matter the decree of the civil Court could also not remain intact." In Muhammad Ramzan and others v. Member (Rev.)/ CSS and others (1997 SCM R 1635) the view taken in Syed Saifullah's case (supra) was affirmed and it was observed that "when the repeal Act became operative, there was no land available for adjustment against produce index units. Mere fact that some matter regarding adjustment of satisfied land, was under consideration or had not been carried out, would not bring the grievance within proviso of section 2 (2) of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. therefore. Notified Officer. thus, had no jurisdiction to allot or transfer the land or grant alternate land against unadjusted verified units." Similar view was taken in Nawabzada Zafar Ali Khan and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others (1999 SCM R 1719). In Ali ,Muhammad through legal heirs and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (2001 SCM R 1822), against the legal position qua the effect of section 2 (2) of the Act was examined and it was 'reiterated that "unutilized PlUs in favour of appellant would not constitute a pending case under section 2 (2) of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975," Quite recently the Honourable Supreme Court has in Government of Punjab, Colonies Department, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Yaqoob (PLD 2002 SC 5) restated the. legal position taking the view that "the land in Chak No,223/RB was not claimed to have ever been proposed for allotment in favour of the respondent/allottee against his remaining unsatisfied verified claim. He did not plead even in the, writ petition' that the same had ever been proposed in his favour and the case was pending for further proceedings for its confirmation or otherwise when the Settlement Laws were repealed. The term "pending proceedings" as used in these laws would mean that an initial A step taken as contemplated under the Settlement Laws for allotment of land against I verified claim of the claimants but the same did not finalise before the repeal of the same, therefore, it was with reference to such cases that it was provided that those would be taken forward and concluded under the repealed Settlement Laws as if they had not been repealed for the said limited purpose and in order to pass final order in such cases a provision was made to appoint a Notified Officer to deal with such cases. Mere possession of any evacuee land as claimed by the respondent in Chak No,223/RB in the writ petition would not make his case, a case of pending proceedings within the contemplation of provision of sections 2 and 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Law (Repeal) Act, 1975, therefore, the direction issued by the learned Judge of the High Court for allotment of the said land under the Settlement Laws to the respondent was violative of law which could not have been given, for under Article 199 of the Constitution, the High Court could direct a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federal Government to do what law requires him to do whereas the direction issued in this case was to be contrary i.e., what law did not require him to do, he was ordered to do." Thus, the legal position is eminently settled qua the Import of section 2 (2) of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The effect of any confessional statement made by the Law Officers in such matters had also been considered in Muhammad Ramzan's case supra) and Ali Muhammad's case supra) as also the legal efficacy of any direction issued by the High Court in writ jurisdiction. It may be observed that while disposing of Writ Petition No,191-R of 1992 which has been filed by respondent No,1, the direction issued by the High Court was to dispose of the application of the petitioner therein, on merits according to law. The Chief Settlement Commissioner was, thus, obliged to consider the matter in accordance with law and not otherwise. The direction to dispose of the matter could not be construed as conferring jurisdiction upon him which he did not possess under the law. Respondent No,2, thus, in the instant case acted wholly without jurisdiction in making allotment of the land in favour of respondent No,1 as it was not a matter of pending proceedings in terms of section 2 (2) of Act XIV of 1975, he had no jurisdiction to make any such allotment. Order impugned, therefore. had no backing of the contemporaneous law which is not sustainable.
The petition is accordingly accepted declaring order dated 24-12-1992 as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. No order as to costs.