1. SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.~ By order dated 22.2.1987 passed by Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Gujrat, allotments made in favour of several persons including Muhammad Sharif who is represented by his legal heirs as respondents in this petition and Muhammad Rafique who is represented by his L.Rs. In W.P. No. 50-R/2000, were found to have been forged and fabricated and regarded as nullity in law and non-existent, It was, thus, observed that such allotments could not be given effect to in the revenue record, It was accordingly ordered that "since illegal and forged orders of allotment have been incorporated in the revenue record, therefore, it is ordered as follows:-
(i) All these allotments as mentioned in para 1/ante shall be considered as never to have existed.
(ii) All subsequent entries in the revenue record based on these allotments shall be reviewed and corrected.
(iii) All the Assistant Commissioners in Gujrat District shall hold an inquiry and fix responsibility as to how these bogus allotments found its way in revenue record and shall submit their report within one month positively."
2. The above order became subject-matter of challenge before this Court through writ petitions. W.P.
3. No. 142-R/87 was find by Muhammad Sharif, deceased, which was heard and disposed of alongwith the other connected petitioners by a common judgment dated 28.11.1993. In paragraph No. 7 of the judgment, it was noted by the learned Single Judge seized of the matter that "proper and legal enquiry has not been conducted in this case before cancelling the disputed allotments due to lack of notice or hearing to the original allottees and for that matter to the present vendees."
4. It was further observed that "the impugned order cannot be sustained merely because the Collector has relied upon certain reports". Observations made while disposing of W.P. No. 63-R/1982 (Amanullah Qureshi v. Addl. Settlement Commissioner and 22 others) were referred which read as under:- "I do not think that there can be any quarrel with the proposition that a Judicial Officer is bound to decide the matter before him in accordance with the evidence produced in that case and not by the findings of any enquiry report conducted by a third party. The direction of the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner that the enquiry report may be kept in mind by the Notified Officer was justified in-holding that he was not bound by the findings of the said enquiry report."
5. It was accordingly held that the "rights of the parties have to be adjudicated on the evidence to be produced before the Notified Officer." By setting aside the impugned order dated 22.2.1987 the matter was remanded to the Notification Officer to decide:
(a) Whether the orders of allotments in this case are forged and fabricated. He will send for Capt.
6. Mahabat Khan and record his evidence in presence of allottees/vendees, if they chose to appear before him.
(b) The Notified Officer shall also go into the question whether the claims find by the allottees are genuine or otherwise.
7. The judgment of this Court dated 28.11.1993 was assailed before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan through C.P.L.A. No. 100-1/1994, but the same was dismissed on 5.6.1 995. It is in the above context and in pursuance of the said order that the Addl. Commissioner (Revenue/Settlement Commissioner - (land) with the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer, Gujranwala has passed the impugned order dated 29.1.1999 which has been challenged by the Province of Punjab in the present petition and W.P. No. 50-R/2000.
2. The main thrust of attack to the order impugned is that the allotment purported to have been confirmed on 2.3.1972 was never done by the officer concerned namely Capt. Mahabat Khan who had appeared as a witness and denied to have made any such allotment or his signature on the RL-II. It is contended that the Notified Officer has over-stepped his jurisdiction in relying upon an earlier report dated 5.2.1985 of Extra Assistant Commissioner which never formed part of the evidence in the present proceedings which had been remanded by this Court, It is contended by the learned counsel that the whole affair was forged and fabricated one which had no sanctity in law. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents i.e. L.Rs. Of Muhammad Sharif has contended that late Muhammad Sharif and his brothers were claimant displaced persons, settled in Pindi Baha-ud-Din and allotted the land which was in their possession and entires were duly made in the revenue record such as Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawaries. It is contended that order of confirmation was in fact passed by Capt. Mahabat Khan who disowned his signatures later on, for extraneous reasons. According to the learned counsel, the matter of allotment could not be reopened or interfered with after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws w.e.f. 1974.
3. As noted above the judgment in W.P. No. 107-R/87 and other connected writ petitions dated 28.11.1 993, some portions whereof have been referred to above, was maintained by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan by refusing leave to appeal on 5.6.1995. In the post-remand proceedings, the parties duly participated. The verity and scope of the said judgment is not open to question by any of the parties thereto. During the proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner Gujrat, in the earlier round statement of Capt. Mahabat Khan was recorded on 18.2.1987 at Lahore when he denied his signature on the relevant register LR-II. That was made basis for order dated 22.2.1987 by the Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat. The said order was set aside by this Court vide judgment dated 28.11.1993 in the writ petition mentioned above and it was observed that the statement of Capt. Mahabat Khan should be recorded in the presence of the parties by summoning him. He was accordingly summoned as a witness, but was unable to appear on account of his ailment. With the concurrence of the parties, statement of Capt. Mahabat Khan was recorded at his residence in Lahore on 14.3.1996. This was statement on Oath made by him and he was cross-examined as well. The Notified Officer, however, took* the view that "there is much weight in the arguments of the learned counsel of the allottee that Capt. Mahabat Khan, the then Deputy Commissioner, Gujrat, who is one- of the 303 Offices who were terminated/dismissed or compulsorily retired from service, in order to save his skin from any further legal, criminal and other complications with criminal intention has denied the truth". Besides that he also took into consideration a past inquiry report of E. A.C. (R) in holding that the allotment was valid and the signatures of Capt. Mahabat Khan were genuine. A lot of stress has been laid by the learned counsel for the Province of Punjab that in view of the statement and out right denial of Capt.
8. Mahabat Khan about the allotment and the signatures, the Notified Officer acted illegally in upholding the allotment. I have been shown the proceedings taken by the Notified Officer in the matter. It is evident therefrom that after the statement of Capt. Mahabat Khan had been recorded, the respondents/allottees were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. On 28.10.1996 it was requested by the learned counsel for the respondents/allottees that report of the Hand-writing Expert about the signatures of Capt. Mahabat Khan may be obtained first. Such a request was again repeated on 23.12.1996 and 17.2.1997, but no order was passed thereafter rather the necessity of such a course was not even considered, In the context of the dispute when the officer concerned had denied the passing of order dated 7.3.1972 confirming the allotment in favour of Muhammad Sharif and denying the very factum of his signatures and the allegation of the allottees that such a denial by the officer was not a bona fide. Appropriate course for the Notified Officer was to have obtained report from the Hand-writing Expert about the signatures of Capt. Mahabat Khan. Merely for the reason that he was one of the 303 officers who had been removed from service, his statement could not be brushed aside which had been made on oath. The doubt if any about the credibility and correctness thereabout could be resolved by comparison of signatures and the report of the Hand-writing Expert which would have been consistent with the provisions of Arts. 78 and 84 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The order passed by the Notified Officer, thus, does not proceed on correct premises and relevant considerations germane to the issue involved, It is not sustainable and is declared as illegal and of no effect.
9. As a consequence, the matter will have to be re-determined afresh in pursuance of judgment of this Court dated 28.11.1993 and the observations made above, It is appropriate that in view of the controversy, the matter is heard and decided by the learned Member Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner who is also a Notified Officer, himself by affording due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned in accordance with law. The petition is accepted and disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.