' Mian Muhammad Bashir, respondent No, 1 herein, had made an application on 1-12-1992 before the Member Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab for allotment of alternate land in lieu of plot claimed to have been allotted in the year 1963 of which he was unable to obtain possession. It was his case that plot comprising Khasra No,871 min measuring 5 Kanals, 11 Marlas and 203 sq. Ft. Situated in Mauza Mozang, Lahore had been allotted to him as a consequence of which, P.T.O., dated 17-7-1963 and P.T.D. Dated 4-1-1965 had been issued. It was his case that he had paid a price of Rs,1,34,400 to the Department. The said application was accepted by Mr. Talib Hussain, Member Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 19-12-1992 who found it a fit case "for allotment of alternate available urban evacuee land in the Punjab". The case was then, entrusted to Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Cheema, Deputy Settlement Commissioner "for allotment of the land as soon as selected by the petitioner". Pursuant thereto, land measuring 310 Kanals, 15 Marlas situated in Lahore Urban Area was allotted favour of respondent No,1 vide orders, dated 20-5-1996, 25-7-1996, 13-8-1996 and 3-10-1996. Later on, vide memorandum addressed to Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore dated 14-2-1998, the Board of Revenue Punjab sought the registration of a case and investigation into the matter that the allotment was illegal and fraudulent. Through another memorandum dated 25-7-1998, the Board of Revenue directed that the implementation of the allotment orders may be stayed as the writ petition was to be filed against the allotment orders. There was, then, reminder dated 9-1-1999 sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Lahore with reference to earlier memorandum dated 16-2-1998. Mian Muhammad Bashir has felt aggrieved of the abovementioned letters/ orders, dated 16-2-1998, 25- 7-1998, 9-1-1999 and assailed through W.P. No,25-R of 1999 whereas the Province of Punjab has challenged the order of Mr. Talib Hussain, Member Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 19-12-1992 and consequential allotment made in favour of Mian Muhammad Bashir. Both these petitions have been heard together.
2. It is contended by Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the. Province of Punjab that land worth crores of rupees has been allotted illegally and through dubious, devious and fraudulent means. It is contended that after the repeal of Settlement laws w,e,f, 1-7-1974, there was no Lawful Authority or power available for allotment of land as was done by means of order dated 19-12-1992 and the consequential orders of allotment. It is contended that the order being void ab initio in view of Muhammad Ramzan and others v. Member (Rev.)/CSS and others 1997 SCM R 1635, Ali Muhammad through Legal Heirs and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others 2001 SCM R 1822 and judgment dated 23-11-2001 in Writ Petition No,63/R of 199 5, it is liable to be declared as of no legal effect. Mr. Ahmed Waheed Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for Mian Muhammad Bashir, supports the order of allotment passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue and the Notified Officer. It is contended that an identical order passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue was challenged through Writ Petition No,200-R of 1997 and the writ petition filed by Province was dismissed on 14-2-2000 by the learned Single Bench of this Court and that the matter is now pending before Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan after grant of leave in C.P. No,879/L of 2001 and No,880/L of 2000. It is suggested that these petitions should be kept pending till the decision of the matter finally by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. Order, dated 17-2-1999 passed in Writ Petition No,29-R of 1995 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner therein who had no locus standi in the matter, had been dismissed, has also been pointed out.
3. Laws relating to evacuee properties, their allotment and transfers were repealed w,e,f, 1-7-1974 through the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 (Act XIV of 1975). The application made by Mian Muhammad Bashir on 1-12-1992 for allotment of alternate land was much after the repeal of the laws. The order and direction issued by Mr. Talib Hussain, learned Member Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner thereon was as follows:--- "I consider it is fit case for allotment of alternate available urban-evacuee land in the Punjab. I, therefore, . The petitioner will be responsible to search out available evacuee urban or residual land against the price of Rs,1,34,400 already paid by him. The price of the land so selected by the petitioner will be worked out on the basis of average market price that was fetched in the year 1965 by a similar land. The case is further entrusted to D.S.C. Punjab (Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Cheema, D.L.R. Punjab) for allotment of the land .As soon as selected by the petitioner."
' It was in pursuance of this that the allotment of the land, mentioned above, was made in favour of Mian Muhammad Bashir, the validity of which is under challenge. In Syed Saifullah v. Board of Revenue, Balochistan through its Member (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 Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing)/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore v. Muhammad Mustafa and 74 others 1993 SCM R 732, a direction was issued by the High Court to the Member Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner on a compromise that "the claimants or their heirs are allotted available land anywhere in Punjab by his Notified Officer as soon as possible within next six months. It will be open to the petitioner to point out any area available." The order was challenged before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and the direction so issued by the High Court was held to be "manifestly against the law". In Muhammad Ramzan's case (supra) also the making of allotment in lieu or as an alternate land was criticized and disapproved. 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 matters regarding adjustment of specified land were under consideration or had not been carried out, would not bring the grievance within purview' of section 2(2) of Act XIV of 1975.
Therefore, Notified Officer had no jurisdiction to allot, or transfer the land or grant. Alternate lands".
Similar view was taken in Nawabzada Zafar Ali Khan and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner/ Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others 1999 SCMR 1819. In Ali Muhammad's case (supra), it was held that "after the repeal of the law, there was no jurisdiction left to make any such allotment". The direction so issued by the learned Member, Board of Revenue in the present case was, thus, manifestly illegal and contrary to law. It will have no effect as it had no legal backing of the contemporaneous law nor the allotment made pursuant thereto will have any legal efficacy. In so far as the judgment passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No,214-R of 1996 and Writ Petition No,200-R of 1997, is concerned, it is respectfully observed that in view of the abovementioned precedents and declaration of law by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, I am obliged and bound to follow the same. As regards judgment in Writ Petition No,29-R of 1995 mentioned above is concerned, suffice it to observe that the said petition was dismissed as the petitioner in that case had failed to establish his locus standi in the matter. The present, however, is a case where the Province of Punjab has assailed the impugned orders. With the repeal of the Evacuee Laws, the property has vested in the Province, which can successfully defend its title. The fate of Writ Petition No,25-R of 1999 hinges upon the validity or otherwise of order dated 19-12-1992.
' As a result of the above order dated 19-12-1992 passed by the learned Member Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner is not sustainable in law, it is declared as of no legal effect. Since orders of allotment were made in consequence of the above mentioned order, the same cannot stand independently and should crumble_ to the ground. Accordingly Writ Petition No,5564-R of 1999 filed by the Province of Punjab, is accepted whereas Writ Petition No,25-R of 1999 is dismissed. No order as to costs.