' On two different applications filed by Fazal Din and Abdul Latif etc. Against Mat. Moazamun Nisa Begum and her son Nawab lqtidar Ali Khan, under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, two cases namely 493/A, Sheikhupura and 2500-A, Sheikhupura were instituted in the Court. Of Syed Wallayat All Bokhari, Settlement Commissioner (Land) With powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab. The cases were in the nature of information laid against the fraudulent allotment obtained by Mst. M azamun Nisa Begum and her son Nawab Iqtidar Ali Khan.
Both the cases were disposed of by the Settlement Commissioner on 16th June 1976. He arrived at a conclusion that Claim Form No, 2993 of Mst. Moazmun Nisa Begum or her son Nawab Iqtidar Ali Khan and Claim Forms Nos. 2099 and 2022 allegedly filed by the same set of persons, are fictitious and allotment of land obtained in different villages against these claims had been obtained by fictitious persons, fraudulently. Ho therefore, ordered the cancellation of the entire allotment obtained against these claims. This finding of the Settlement Commissioner is not in dispute in the present petition.
' As retards the rights of the petitioner as informer for obtaining allotment of land resumed this officer directed : ' The petitions of informers may be considered for the transfer of the so resumed land if they are found to be entitled for such transfer under the law."
2. By the time the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 16th June 1976, was passed, all evacuee laws had been repealed by Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Repealing Act), The disposal of the evacuee property or of such property as may become available after the repeal of evacuee laws, was to be governed by the provisions of the Repealing Act. Section 3 of the Repealing Act provides that machinery and relevant portion of the same is reproduced here for facility of reference :- "3. Transfer of property.-(l) All properties, both urban and rural, including agricultural land, other than such properties attached to charitable, religious or educational trusts or institutions, whether occupied or unoccupied which may be available for disposal immediately before the repeal of the aforesaid Acts and Regulations, or which may become available for disposal after such repeal as a result of a final order passed under subsection (3) of suction 2, shall stand transferred to the Provincial Government, on payment of such price as may be fixed by the Federal Government in consultation with the Provincial Government, for disposal-
(a) In the case of urban properties, by the Provincial Government under a scheme to be prepared by it in this behalf and
(b) In the case of rural properties, by the Board of Revenue of the Province under a scheme to be prepared by the Provincial Government in this behalf t ' Provided that agricultural land occupied by any person continuously for four harvests immediately preceding Kharif, 1973 shall first be offered for sale to such person unless an order of ejectment has been passed against him in respect of such land ' Provided further that only so much land shall be offered to such person as does not together with land already held by him, exceed a subsistence holding within the meaning of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972.
3. It may be stated that prior to the Repealing Act, Ordinance dated 10th May 1974, namely Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws 'Repeal) Ordinance, 1974 occupied the field and in the exercise of powers given under the Ordinance, manner of disposal of the rural evacuee agricultural land was provided by the Government of Punjab, Board of Revenue Rehabilitation and Settlement Wing, in its Memorandum No, 915, POL/74 dated 20th November 1974. The memo. Is to the following effect :-- "In pursuance of proviso to section 3, Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal)
Ordinance, 1974 the following instructions are issued for the disposal of allotted occupied rural evacuee agricultural land, on the following terms and conditions (0 All un-allotted rural evacuee agricultural land shall be offered to the persons who have been in actual cultivating possession thereof for a period of at least four harvests preceding 15-6-1973 up to the extent of 12.1-2 acres. In case any other land is held by such occupant on the basis of an independent right, such holding shall be taken into account for determining the maximum limit specified above.
' The concession to purchase land contemplated in the preceding paragraph shall be extended only to those occupants whose total holding including the land intended to be purchased --
(i) does not exceed subsistence bolding within the meaning of Land Reforms Regulation, 1972;
(ii) the intending purchaser is in continuous possession of the land and no order for ejectment has been passed against him in respect of such land;
(iii) a claimant informer has not submitted information in respect of such land before 30-6-1974."
Section 2 of the Repealing Act has outlined the procedure as to the Purposely of pending cases or the cases remanded by the Supreme Court or a High Court. Subsections (0, (3) and (4) of this section are the relevant provisions in this regard. The same are reproduced hereunder t- "2.-(2) Upon the repeal of the aforesaid Acts and Regulations, all proceedings which, immediately before such repeal, may be pending before the authorities appointed thereunder shall stand transferred for final disposal to such officers as may be notified by the Provincial Government in the official Gazette and all cases decided by the Supreme Court or a High Court after such repeal which would have been remanded to any such authority in the absence of such repeal shall be remanded to the officers notified as aforesaid.
(3) Any proceedings transferred or remanded to an officer in pursuance of subsection (2) shall be disposed of by him in accordance with the provisions of the Act or Regulation hereby repealed to which the proceedings relate.
(4) The final orders passed under subsection (3) shall be executed by the Board of Revenue of the Province in accordance with the provisions of the Act or Regulation hereby repealed to which the proceedings related."
4. Earlier by Act LV of 1973, section 14 (1-A) was added to section 14 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. Under this newly added section, an informer was given a statutory right to claim allotment of land against his pending entitlement as has been unearthed on account of the information provided section 14 (1-A) is reproduced hereunder : "14.-(1-A) Where on the information of a claimant about bogus or fraudulent allotment of land, the information has been proved to be correct and the land so molted has been cancelled and resumed by the competent authority, the resumed land shall be allotted to the informant, to the extent of his claim pending for allotment in the same province."
' In the light of the statutory provisions noticed above, the aspect to be examined is if the land cancelled as a result of the proceedings initiated under the Repealing Act and concluded after the repeal, will be considered to be the land available to be disposed of by the Provincial Government in terms of section 3 of the Repealing Act or the same is to be allotted to the informer under the right given to him under section 14 (1A) as added by Act LV of 1973 to section 14 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act ?
I am of the view that subsection (3) of section 2 of the Repealing Act is a complete answer to this proposition. Any proceedings transferred or remanded to an officer in pursuance of subsection (2) shall be disposed of by him in accordance with the provisions of the Act or regulations repealed by the Repealing Act. It therefore, follows that if mukhbari proceedings were pending when the Repeating Act was enforced, the same shall have to be concluded under the provisions of the repealed law. Section 14 (1.A) had become a part of the Displaced Pawns (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and informer was given a right to obtain allotment of the land cancelled as a result of the information against his pending claim. The cancelled land will become available only if it has not been disposed of by the officer hearing the matter pending under sections 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The interpretation adopted is in line with the departmental interpretation of these provisions. In Memo. No, 915, P01474 dated 20th November 1974 (reproduced in paragraph No, 3 above) the concession given to the occupant to purchase land was not extended to such land in regard to which information has been laid before 30th June 1974.
5. Now I advent to the merits of the case in hand. As noticed above, the Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 16th June 1976 had given an express direction that the land resumed be allotted to the informers. The petitioner, therefore, on 3-2-1977 submitted an application to the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) for the allotment of land cancelled uncles orders of the Settlement Commissioner dated 16th June 1976. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner disposed of the application in a summary manner. On 18th April 1977, he sent the case to the Tehsildar (Revenue) to examine certain "Implications" pointed out by the officer in this order. The same were to the following effect : "(1) Stay order issued by High Court in village Bamboo and
(2) Patwari statement etc. Other instruction of Government etc. And submit report by 20-4-1977."
' The Tehsildar behind the back of the petitioner, submitted a report on 294-1971. In this report he took the view that future allotments of evacuee land have been banned and that the allotments could be made only to the first informant I e. Fazal Din. He was further of the view that petitioner Muhammad Shari! Was not a claimant himself and therefore, he could not get any benefit as informer. He admits In his report that Mst. Assi had 3164 pending units. He is however, of the view that it has not been shown that petitioner Muhammad Sharif has any right in the units pending in the name of Mst. Assi. The Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) on the same day viz. 29-4-1977 rejected the petitioner's application by a very brief order which lacks reasons. This order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) has been called in question in the present constitutional petition.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the order dated 29-4.1977, has been passed without hearing the petitioner and behind his back. He had a right to obtain allotment against his pending claim as was unearthed on the basis of the information laid by him. The Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 16th June 1976 had granted the petitioner this right and the learned Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner could not go behind this order to find out as to which one of the two sets of informers was entitled to obtain allotment as informer. The petitioner was impleaded as a party in the proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner as heir of Mst. Assi who admittedly, had 3164 Produce Index Units pending satisfaction. The petitioner therefore, could obtain allotment out of the entitlement of Mst. Assi to the extent of his share.
7. I have considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent to oppose this petition. I am inclined to agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Although the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in his order has observed " after hearing the parties there is no scope for accepting or request", yet I feel that this order cannot be sustained. He down not seem to have applied his mind to the facts of the case. He disposed of the case in a slip-shod manner. The petitioner was impleaded as party in the proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner as heir of Mst. Assi.
The Tehsildar, therefore, was not justified in forming the view without bearing the petitioner that he did not have any pending claim. If the Tehsildar while submitting his report or the respondent while disposing of the case finally, had afforded the petitioner proper opportunity of hearing, he could establish that he had already inherited right in the claim abandoned by Mst. Assi. The Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 16th June 1976 had accepted the petitioner, inter alia as an informer and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was not justified in reopening this matter. Order of the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 29-4-1977, therefore, cannot be sustained and is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The case is remanded to him for disposing of the petitioner's application dated 3rd February 1977, afresh by himself or by an officer notified under subsection (2) of section 2 of the Repealing Act, competent to dispose of such matters after hearing the petitioner and in the light of the observations made above.
8. Before parting with the case I wish to make it clear that if in any independent dated 16.6.1916, has been modified or its operation has been stayed, the officer dealing with the case, notwithstanding the remand by this Court, would be entitled to take note of it. As no one has appeared to oppose this petition, there will be no order as to costs.