M. JAVED BUTTAR, J.--- The petitioner No. 1, !shag (since deceased), through this Constitutional petition assailed the order dated 29.10.1978 passed by respondent No. 2/Administrator (Residual Properties), Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi, whereby the revision petition of respondent No. 3 (since deceased) under para 31 of the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977, was allowed, the order dated 26.6.1978, passed by Mr. Azhar Hussain in his capacity as the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, of the restoration of the transfer order in favour of the deceased petitioner was held to be void, without jurisdiction, to be ignored and vide the same order the respondent No. 3 set aside another order of even date i.e. 26.6.1978 passed by the same officer in his capacity as Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties)
Rawalpindi whereby the form of respondent No. 3 for the transfer of the portion transferred to petitioner No. 1 was rejected and the matter was remanded back to the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) for the disposal of the Form filed by the deceased respondent No. 3 afresh.
2. The relevant facts are that a C.S. Form was filed by the deceased petitioner, Muhammad Ishaq, who was a claimant, for the transfer of the property in dispute bearing No. A/72, Rawalpindi City, a godown, and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, vide his order dated 28.2.1962, transferred the property in favour of the petitioner except a portion occupied by one Muhammad Ibrahim, a local.
The appeal filed by respondent No. 3 against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was rejected. The respondent No. 3 then took the matter before the Settlement Commissioner, who, vide his order dated 20.8.1964, transferred the property in favour of petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 in accordance with the compromise and thus the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 became owners of one half share each. of the above said property. In the meanwhile, the excluded portion in occupation of Muhammad Ibrahim was transferred to Muhammad Ibrahim on 7.1.1963.
The appeal of , petitioner No. 1 against the same was dismissed on 6.3.1965. His revision petition was, however, allowed by the Settlement Commissioner on 6.4.1966 and the matter was remanded to the Additional. Settlement Commissioner, who further remanded it to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, vide his order dated 21.2.1968, transferred the excluded portion in occupation of the abovesaid Muhammad Ibrahim to the deceased petitioner No. 1. The matter remained subject-matter of litigation for quite some time and ultimately the transfer effected in favour of . the deceased petitioner No. 1, in regard to the portion occupied by Muhammad Ibrahim, was upheld and maintained.
3. The godown transferred to the petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 3 by the Settlement Commissioner in terms- of the compromise, vide his order dated 20.8.1964 (the property in dispute) was to be demarcated in accordance with the directions given by the superior Courts and it has been alleged by the petitioners that no steps, however, were taken in the said direction, despite the repeated applications filed by the deceased petitioner No. 1. It may also be mentioned here that petitioner No. 2, Israr Ahmed is an associate of the deceased petitioner No. 1. The perusal of the record show that a sum of Rs.12,960/- was declared as a sum due from the deceased petitioner No. 1 on account of transfer price of the property which was to be adjusted through Compensation Book No. 96432- of Karachi through an Agreement Deed of Association. Later on, the said Compensation. Book was declared to be fictitious and due to the default in payment of the transfer price, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, vide his order dated 30.7.1976, agreeing with the report of the Ward Ind-large, of the even date, cancelled the transfer made in favour of the petitioner No. 1. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 had no notice, knowledge or information of the aforesaid proceedings being conducted by the .Deputy Settlement Commissioner, resulting in the cancellation of the transfer orders in favour of petitioner No. 1 and on knowledge, he filed an application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for the recall of the said orders. The order dated 26.6.1978, passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, shows that the application was filed by petitioner No. 1 on 9.5.1978 alongwith a .Surrender Deed in favour of Israr Ahmad/petitioner No. 2, stating therein that petitioner No. 1 had - surrendered 1/4th share of his property in favour c.' petitioner No. 2 and the value of the property in the ratio of 1/411-1 and 3/4th was to paid. by both of them according to their respective shares. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 3 had also filed a Form under the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977, for the transfer of the portion of godown No. A/72, Rawalpindi, i.e. the property in dispute which became available due to its resumption form the petitioner No. 1. Mr. Azhar Hussain, Deputy Settlement Commissioner, vide. his order dated 26.6.1978, recalled the order dated 30.6.1976, by which the transfer was cancelled due to the non-payment of the transfer price: It was concluded by him as a finding of fact; That no notice was served upon the petitioner No. 1, it was given on the wrong address where petitioner No. 1 was not residing; That the transfer was cancelled due to the default in the payment of the transfer price without any intimation to petitioner No. 1; That the petitioner No. 1 remained in dark regarding all the proceedings taken against him; That the Deed of Association regarding payment of transfer price was cancelled in routine without his knowledge; That the demand notice for the payment of the transfer price was sent on a wrong address; And the intimation of resumption order was never communicated to petitioner No. 1.
In view of the above findings, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner recalled the resumption order dated 30.7.1976 and restored the transfer order in favour of petitioner No. 1, the Deed of Association was allowed and approved. The payment as such was duly made by the petitioners and there is no balance whatever payable on their part.
4. The same officer (Mr. Mazhar Hussain), in his capacity as Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties), Rawalpindi, vide his separate order of even date i.e. 26.6.1978, rejected the Form submitted by respondent No. 3 under the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977, for the transfer of one-half portion of godown No. A/72, Rawalpindi (the property in dispute) which was transferred to the petitioner No. 1, on the ground that the property was no more available for disposal as the resumption order stood recalled.
5. The order dated 26.6.1978, passed by Mr. Azhar Hussain, in his capacity as Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties), Rawalpindi, of the rejection of his Form was challenged by the respondent No. 3 through a revision petition under para 31 of the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977 before the respondent No. 2/Administrator (Residual Properties), Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi. It may be noted here that respondent No. 3 never assailed the order dated 26.6.1978, passed by Mr. Azhar Hussain, in his capacity as Deputy Settlement Commissioner, whereby the resumption order dated 30.7.1976 was recalled by him.
6. The Administrator (Residual Properties), Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi, vide his impugned order dated 29.1.1978, as mentioned above, accepted the revision petition of respondent No. 3, declared that the order dated 26.6.1978, passed by. the said officer as Deputy Settlement Commissioner (though not challenged before him) of restoration was a void order, without jurisdiction and was to be ignored and also set aside the order dated 26.6.1978, passed by the same officer, in his capacity as Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties), Rawalpindi, and remanded the case back to him for the disposal of the Form filed by respondent No. 3 afresh, under the rules.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also seen the relevant record, the copy of which has been attached with this petition by the . petitioners and by the respondent No. alongwith his written statement. I have also gone through the various judgments cited by the learned counsel for the parties.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Settlement Laws were meant to settle as many people as possible, the deceased petitioner No. 1 was a claimant whereas the deceased respondent-No. 3 was a non-claimant, respondent No. 3 in his own right wa not entitled to the transfer of any portion in the disputed godown, it was because of the courtesy of the deceased petitioner No. 1 that respondent No. 3 was transferred one-half portion of the godown, as the godown was transferred to the petitioner No. 1 and the deceased respondent No. 3, in equal shares, because of a compromise entered into between the parties, vide orders dated 20.8.1964, passed by the Settlement _Commissioner, the petitioner No. 1 has since died leaving behind a widow and children and there is no compulsion to deprive the widow and the orphans of the property, which was lawfully transferred to their predecessor, the orders of cancellation. of transfer and of cancellation of the Deed of Association were passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 30.7.1976, without any notice to the petitioner No. 1, the demand notice was issued to him on a wrong address and no show-cause notice regarding the resumption of the property was ever issued, the three applications submitted by the deceased petitioner No. 1, available on the record, showed his correct address, despite the same the notices were not issued on the said address but on the wrong address where the petitioner No. 1 was not residing notice was issued at the address A/72, Rawalpindi City, where the deceased respondent No. 3 was residing in Writ Petition No. 243 the address of deceased petitioner No. 1, Muhammad lshaq, was given as bungalow No. A-200, New Abadi, Mohanpura Scheme, Rawalpindi, his address in appeal and revision was as A-200, City Sadar Road, Rawalpindi, respondent No. 3, in his application dated 19.8.1971, gave the address of petitioner No. 1 as Muhammad Ishaq C/o Abdul Waheed Furniture Dealer, The Mall, Rawalpindi, the issue of non-service of notice on the deceased petitioner No. 1 and the issuance of notice on the wrong address was thoroughly gone into by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and he conclusively gave findings of facts that no notice was served upon petitioner No. 1, it was issued on the wrong address where petitioner No. 1 was not residing the transfer was cancelled, due to the default in the payment of the transfer price, without any intimation or notice to petitioner No. 1, petitioner No. 1 remained in dark regarding all the proceedings taken against him, the Deed of Association regarding payment of transfer price was cancelled in routine without his knowledge, the demand notice for payment of the transfer price Was sent on a wrong address and the intimation of resumption order was never communicated to him and these findings of facts recorded by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 26.6.1978 have attained finality and they have never been held to be wrong or incorrect by any competent authority, including the respondent No. 2, who, vide his impugned order dated 29.10.1978, illegally held that the order dated 26.6.1978, passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, was to be ignored on the wrong assumption that it was void and without jurisdiction, that even if the Association Deed is to be cancelled being bogus, the transferee thereafter has a right to be issued a notice for the purposes of giving him time for making payment of the transfer price, the respondent No. 2/Administration (Residual Properties) has wrongly held in the impugned order that the order dated 26.6.1978, passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, was void, it was passed by competent authority and, at the most, it was avoidable and could not have been ignored or directed to be ignored unless set aside by the competent authority, the order dated 26.6.1978, passed by Mr. Azhar Hussain, in his capacity as Deputy Settlement commissioner, Rawalpindi, attained finality as the same was never assailed by anyone, including respondent No. 3, before any competent authority and although respondent No. 3 could have assailed the same through invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court but he failed to do so and he merely filed a revision petition under para 31 of the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of the Available Urban Properties, 1977 before the respondent No. 2/Administrator (Residual Properties) against the order dated 26.6.1978, passed by Mr. Azhar Hussain, in his capacity as Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties), Rawalpindi, therefore, the scope of revision before the Administrator was very limited and in fact the revision of respondent No. 3 before the Administrator had no merit because' after the restoration of the transfer orders in favour of deceased petitioner No. 1, the property in dispute was no more available and the Form of respondent No. 3, for the transfer of the portion in dispute, under the aforesaid Scheme, was rightly rejected but the Administrator went beyond his authority in holding that the order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 26.6.1978 was to be ignored as void, although the said order had not been assailed before him, reference in this regard can be made to the revision petition itself filed by respondent No. 3 before the Administrator and even if any such revision petition had been filed by the respondent No. 3 before the Administrator, the same would have been incompetent as no revision after the repeal of the Settlement Laws w.e.f. 1.7.1974, under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act; XIV of 1975 against the order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was competent, the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2/the Administrator being totally without jurisdiction is, therefore, ab initio void, even otherwise the order dated 30.7.1976, passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, was a nullity as it was not a speaking order, it was passed merely on the report dated 30.7.1976 submitted by Ward Incharge, and the order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, on 30.7.1976, passed on the report of the Ward Incharge, merely read as "Entitlement cancelled. Issue memo." The same was, therefore, rightly recalled, though on other grounds of non-issuance of any notice to petitioner No. 1, by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner through a subsequent order dated 26.6.1978, the justice was, therefore, done and the respondent No. 2/the Administrator while exercising his revisional jurisdiction wrongly and illegally held that the order dated 26.6.1978 is to be ignored because the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to review his earlier order passed by him in 1976, without realizing that by holding so he (this Administrator) was perpetuating injustice merely on the basis of technicality and that too, in a matter in which he (the Administrator) had no jurisdiction. It has also .been argued that the resumption order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, in 1976, without the compliance of the provision of paras 2.and 3 of the Settlement Scheme No. VIII, of the issuance of proper demand notices at the correct address and thereafter of the issuance of show-cause notices for cancellation, was illegal and ab initio void, that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in the same proceedings could not have cancelled the Deed of Association as the same could be cancelled only by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, and, even otherwise, before venturing upon to cancel the Deed of Association, on the ground that the same was bogus, a fresh show-cause notice was required to be issued to petitioner No. 1, to enable him to make fresh arrangements, for the. payment of the transfer price. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon certain judgments passed by this Court and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are discussed be[ow: Raza Muhammad v. Settlement Commissioner and others (1985 SCMR 1267), composite property was transferred to petitioner and one W by a compromise, subsequently portion of W was auctioned, in ensuing litigation petitioners claim to portion of W was rejected, on the ground that he was bound by terms of compromise and could not seek any portion transferred to W, the orders were' upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was held that the petitioner had no locus stand! to claim any portion transferred, in terms' of compromise, to W, his plea for the grant of Leave to Appeal was held to have no merits. In Ghazi Khan v. Republic of Pakistan through the Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Refugee and Rehabilitation Rawalpindi and others (PLD 1973 Kar. 624), it was held that property once transferred under any Settlement Scheme cannot be resumed without show-cause notice even if the compensation book was later on found to be bogus. Subedar Major Aziz Ahmad v. Mst. Sardar Begum and 3 others (1971 SCMR 750) shows that the Deeds of Associations a e to be cancelled by the Additional Settlement Commissioners and the Deputy Settlement Commissioners could merely recommend the cancellation. In The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others (PLD 1975 SC 331), it was held that even the order obtained by fraud was not void but only voidable and it remained operative unless set aside and recalled. In Mst. Amina Begum v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Circle-I, Lahore and 3 others (PLD 1980 Lah. 571) the order of resumption without notice to the heirs of the deceased transferee was held to be in clear violation of mandatory provisions of Settlement Scheme No. VIII. In Muhammad Hidayatullah v. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha and 3 others (PLD 1971 Lah. 931), it was held that the issuance of demand notice under para 2 of Settlement Scheme No. VIII. was a condition precedent to the cancellation of transfer and resumption of property. It was further held that the provisions regarding service of notice cannot be dispensed with and notice should be addressed to transferee. In Muhammad Ali v. Member, Board of Revenue and 7 others (1981 SCMR 852), it was held that the resumption order without the compliance of para 3 of Settlement Scheme No. VIII is a nullity in the eye of law. It was further held that after cancellation the defaulter is to be informed about the order of resumption, to enable him to .seek a remedy. Similarly in Sughran Begum v.
Nawab Din, etc. (NLR 1986 Civil 158) a resumption without service of registered demand notice was held to be liable to be set aside. In Muhammad Shafi v. Mauj Din Khan and 3 others (PLD 1976 Lah.
17), the cancellation of Association Deed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner merely on a report without notice to the affected party was held to be illegal. In Ch. Sardar Ali v. Ch. Ali Muhammad and another (PLD 1970 Lah. 647), it was held that the order of cancellation not conveyed to the defaulter was a nullity. In Muhammad Siddique v. S, and RC., etc. (PLJ 1975 Lah.
294), the orders of cancellation and resumption without notice were held to be unlawful. Similarly in Atta Muhammad Qureshi v. The Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and 2 others (PLD 1971 S.C. 61) the orders without notice were held to be a nullity. In Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (Pakistan), Lahore (2) Khan Farzand Ali Khan, Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore and (3) Dr. A.H. Khokhar (PLD 1964 S.C. 829), it was held that the Authority is to . apply its mind independently, to the questions raised and not merely to counter-sign a note put up by the Settlement Commissioner (Policy). In Mst. Chanda Begum . v. Settlement Commissioner and another (PLD 1977 S.C. 503), merely approval of the order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner without applying his own independent mind to the facts of the case was considered to be without any lawful authority and as such of no legal effect. In Muhammad Musa v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and 2 others (1974 SCMR 352), the expression "liable to cancellation" was held to envisage application of mind by appropriate Authority, the failure of the auction-purchaser to pay price or installment did not, therefore, operate as automatic cancellation of auction. In Sher Muhammad and others v. Settlement Commissioner and others (1988 SCMR 576), there was a default in payment of entire price within the prescribed time and the demand notices were not issued. It was held that the issuance of demand notices under paras 2 and 3 of Settlement Scheme No. VIII were a mandatory requirement and there could be no resumption without the same, without which no penal consequences could flow. In Israr Ahmad and others v.
Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and another (1997 SCMR 1559), the Settlement Authorities had not conveyed their refusal to adjust transfer price of the property from the compensation book of the claimant which was found to be bogus or fictitious and nothing on the record existed to show that before canceling the auction in favour of the auction-purchaser, the Settlement Authorities had called upon him to make payment of the balance transfer price of the property. It was held that Chief Settlement Commissioner was well within his right in terms of Settlement Scheme No. VIII to allow adjustment of price by asking the auction-purchaser to pay the same in cash. It was also held that service of notice of cancellation, to a successful bidder, was a mandatory requirement of law, under paras 2, 3 and 4 of Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that auction-purchaser had the right to approach the concerned Settlement Authorities for restoration of transfer, and the competent Authority had the jurisdiction, even after cancellation of the transfer, on account of failure to pay the transfer price, to allow to pay the same, if the property was not disposed of, in the meantime. Reference in this regard was made to Muhammad Afzal v, Muhammad Yousaf and others (1984 SCMR 296).
Learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed his reliance on two unreported judgments. In Abdul Hamid v. Settlement Commissioner, etc. a judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 118/R of 1979, on 25.4.1983, by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the property in question was transferred to respondent No. 3 in 1960 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, on the failure to pay the transfer price, notice was issued in July, 1970 for the payment, within 30 days, and due to the non- compliance the Deputy Settlement Commissioner resumed the property on 15th September, 1970 and a notice of resumption was sent on 17th September, 1970, the respondent did not take any further action till 1978 when he made an application dated 26.8.1978 for the restoration of the property and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, vide his impugned order dated 16.11.1978, transferred the same to respondent No. 3, by withdrawing the cancellation and resumption order passed, previously. It was held that after its restoration the property in dispute was no more available for transfer to the petitioner and the restoration orders, passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, in 1978, whereby he recalled his cancellation orders dated 15.9.1970, were upheld.
The writ petition was consequently dismissed. It may also be mentioned here that C.P. No. 1000 of 1983 of the aforesaid Abdul Hamid was dismissed and the leave was refused by the Supreme Court on 23.11.1987. In Writ Petition No. 854/R of 1970, decided by a learned Single Bench of this Court on 30.3.1985, it was held that resumption of property could not have been done without serving a proper notice on all the legal heirs of the original transferee.
9. Learned counsel representing the legal representatives of respondent No. 3, while vehemently opposing the petition submitted that the subsequent order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, in 1978, recalling his earlier order of cancellation of transfer, passed in 1976, amounted to a review of his earlier order, whereas the review jurisdiction stood withdrawn by Ordinance II of 1962 and after the repeal of the Settlement Laws w.e.f. 1.7.1974, even otherwise there was no review jurisdiction, hence, the subsequent order was illegal and was correctly declared to be void and to be ignored by the respondent No. 2/the Administrator in his impugned order. It is submitted next that the resumption order was passed for non-payment of transfer price, the same was lawful and the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the proceedings whereby the case of a third-party is under consideration for the transfer of the available property. Learned counsel has also cited a number Of judgments wherein the resumption orders passed on the failure of payment of transfer price were upheld. None of the judgments cited by the learned counsel are, however, relevant because in all those judgments it was held that the transferee failed to take steps to make-up default in spite of notice. Reliance has also been placed on Headmaster Muslim High School No. 1, Rawalpindi' and another v. Asghari Khanam and 2 others (1984 SCMR 332), wherein it was held that after the repeal of Settlement Laws w.e.f. 1.7.1974 the revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner against the order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was not competent.
10. Avoiding the repetition, on the strength of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners (para 8 ante) and on the basis of the conclusive findings of facts, having attained finality, recorded by the D.S.C., vide his order dated 26.6.1978 (para 3 ante), it is held that the previous order of resumption and cancellation etc. dated 30.7:1976 of D.S.C., Rawalpindi, was illegal and void ab initio, as it, not only violated the principle of natural justice of audi alteram partem but also violated the provisions of para 2 of Settlement Scheme No. VIII. It is also held that the abovesaid order dated 30.6.1976 was a nullity in the eye of law, as it was not a speaking order. It is further held that the subsequent order dated 26.6.1978, passed by the D.S.C., Rawalpindi, attained finality, as it was never challenged by anyone, including the deceased respondent No. 3, before any higher forum, including this Court. It is reiterated that no revision against the said order was, however, competent or maintainable after the repeal of the Settlement Laws 1.7.1974 and the only remedy available to respondent No. of assailing the same through a Constitutional petition before this Court but, as mentioned above, respondent No. 3 never assailed it in an manner, before any higher forum. The reference in this regard can also be made, besides Act XIV of 1975, to Headmaster Muslim High School v. Asghari Khanum (1984 SCMR 332). The revision petition, under para 31 of the Settlement Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977, instituted by deceased respondent No. 3, before the respondent No. 2/Administrator (Residual Properties), Rawalpindi, was directed only against a separate order dated 26.6.1978, passed by Mr. Azhar Hussain, in his capacity as Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties), Rawalpindi, and was not directed against his order dated 26.6.1978 passed by him, in his capacity as the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, and, therefore, the scope of the said revision petition, before respondent No. 2, was limited to the extent of the validity of the order dated 26.6.1978, passed by the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties), Rawalpindi, and the respondent No. 2, while hearing the said revision petition could not go into the validity of the order dated 26.6.1978, passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, as even otherwise he had no jurisdiction to sit in a judgment over an order passed by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The revision petition against the order dated 26.6.1978 passed by the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties), Rawalpindi, had no merit, because after the restoration of the transfer in favour of the deceased petitioner No. 1, the disputed property was no more available for disposal and, therefore, the Deputy Administrator, through his above order, had correctly rejected the Form of respondent No. 3. It is further held that the respondent No. 2 illegally held that the order dated 26.6.1978, passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, was a void order and was to be ignored. The said order was not void and at the most, a voidable order. I may also mention here that the effect of the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 is that an illegal and ab initio void order, passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner previously on 30.7.1976, has been restored, which is not permissible under the law.
11. In view of the above-mentioned, the writ petition is allowed with costs throughout and the impugned order dated 29.10.1978, passed by the Administrator (Residual Properties), Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi, is set aside.