MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.-- This petition is directed against the judgment dated 15.2.2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Constitutional Petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
2. The property in dispute consisting of 48 shops over an area of 12 marlas was transferred to the petitioners by the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties), Jhang, on 30.6.1979 being undisposed of evacuee property. It was observed that if the transferees wanted to use the open space belonging to the Municipal Committee, Jhang, they will be responsible to pay its rent to the Municipal Committee. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners), the Municipal Committee was heard by the Deputy Administrator before passing the said order.
3. The Municipal Committee, Jhang, feeling aggrieved by the said order filed a revision petition before the Administrator (Residual Properties), Jhang. Their case was that the land underneath the shops was never evacuee as it belonged from the very start to the Municipal Committee, therefore, the transfer of the site of the shops in favour of the present petitioners was without jurisdiction. The Administrator through an order dated 31.12.1979 disposed of the said revision petition with the observation that the Municipal Committee should approach the civil Court. This direction was given on the assumption that in the circumstances of the case it was only the Civil Court which could decide the question of title.
4. The Municipal Committee filed an application before the Member, Board of Revenue, in its capacity as the authority having overall supervision over the- functionaries of the Residual Properties, which was sent to the Administrator for report. The Administrator recommended that the case may be remanded to the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties), Jhang, for reexamination of the same. The Member, Board of Revenue, directed the Administrator to pass a proper order afresh in the matter in exercise of jurisdiction vested in him. The Administrator through order dated 28.2.1981 set aside the order of the Deputy Administrator dated 30.6.1979 and remanded the case to the said officer for re-consideration of the matter to find out, what was the extent of evacuee interest in the property underneath the shops, in the record belonging to the Municipal Committee, Jhang, over which the shops had been allegedly constructed by non- evacuee. This order was challenged by the petitioners through a constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court- which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 15.2.2000, against which leave is sought.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners firstly submitted that neither the Board of Revenue nor the Administrator (Residual Properties) were vested with the jurisdiction to remand the case to the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) for the remedy of the Municipal Committee was to file a civil suit to establish its title in the property.
6. This argument in our opinion is plainly unsound. Once an application is made to the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) for seeking transfer of a property on the ground that the same was undisposed of evacuee property, any person if disputes that it was an evacuee property, as such, it is not residual evacuee property, it is incumbent upon the officer i.e. Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties), to first determine for a limited purpose, that he had jurisdiction to deal with the property as residual evacuee property for which purpose it was necessary to decide as to what was the extent of evacuee interest in the property, therefore, the Municipal Committee was not obliged to file a civil suit for the purpose.
7. Learned counsel then argued that the scope after remand of leading evidence has been limited to the examination of P.T. Register maintained by the Government for immovable properties due to which the petitioners shall be deprived of the right to produce any other evidence to prove that the property including the land underneath the shops was evacuee and undisposed of. No such restriction or stipulation is spelt out from the order of the Administrator (Residual Properties) wherein it has been clearly stated that apart from examining the P.T. Register, the parties shall be at liberty to lead additional evidence if they so desired, therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to lead any other evidence relevant to the issue.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner then argued that the Member, Board of Revenue, could not interfere in the matter. The argument has no force. The Board of Revenue has overall control over the residual evacuee properties and officers appointed to dispose of the same, therefore, if a direction was issued to the Administrator to re-consider the matter in the light of the pleas raised by the Municipal Committee, there was no illegality committed by the Board of Revenue. Besides we have noticed that in the prayer made in the Constitutional petition that the order of remand of the Administrator dated 28.2.1981 was. Sought to be set aside and not the proceedings taken by the Board of Revenue, therefore, the petitioners are debarred from raising any objection at this stage. The impugned judgment of the learned Judge in chambers of the High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity as it is just and proper.
For the foregoing reasons, this petition has no merits which is, accordingly, dismissed and .