1. Mehar Din predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners herein was a displaced person who held proprietary land and land mortgaged with possession. His claim was processed and entitlement was worked out at 1000 produce index units out of which 193 P.I.U.s. were in respect of proprietary rights and 807 P.I.U.s. in respect of mortgagee rights. He was allotted 17 acres of land in village Hardo Chhichherwali fehsil and District, Gujranwala which was confirmed sometime in the year 1953. There was a memorandum issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 11-4-1961 in pursuance whereof the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, Lands, Gujranwala cancelled the land vide his order dated 31-7-1961. Thereafter, another memorandum was issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 18-5-1962 permitting the exercise of option to purchase lands allotted in lieu of mortgagee rights. There were certain orders passed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities and the matter eventually reached this Court in W.P. No,294-R of 1964, which petition filed by Mehar Din was dismissed by the learned Division Bench of this Court on 6-11-1968 observing that " to refuse relief to the petitioner would not leave him Without remedy for under the Settlement Scheme, he will still be entitled to claim compensation in respect of his units for mortgagee rights". Mehar Din then filed a Mukhbari application under Section 10 of the Displaced Person (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 for cancellation of allotment obtained by Nizam Din son of Dullah, Mst. Hajran daughter of Assu and Nizam Din son of Bundu, that the allotment obtained by them at Khata Nos,278 and 268 was result of fraud and misrepresentation. The said Mukhbari petition was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala on 22-9-1969 who ordered the cancellation of allotment obtained by the above-named persons at the respective Khatas. It is the case of the petitioners that the land was then proposed in favour of Mehar Din on 8-101969 at Khata No,416/24 against his entitlement of 705 units. Order dated 22-91969 was challenged through to separate Settlement Revision Petitions he. S.R. No,148 and S. R. No,147 of 1969, (later converted to W.P. No,76-R and W.P. No,77-R of 1973). On 27-2-1975 W.P. No,76-R of 1973 was dismissed whereas W.P. No,77-R of 1973 was accepted by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
2. Order passed. in W.P. No, 76-R of 1973 was assailed' before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and C.A. No,374 of 1980 was ultimately dismissed by their lordships on 15-6-1988. Civil Review Petition No,60-R of 1988 was also dismissed by their lordships on 14-1990.
3. In the background briefly stated above the petitioners had made an application before respondent No,1 that after order dated 22-9-1969 (accepting their Mukhbari application and cancelling land at Khata No,278 (Mst. Assu) it was proposed to them on 8-10-1969 which proposal should be confirmed. The matter thereafter remained pending with respondent No,1, and no final order was being passed which the petitioners filed the present writ petition. On 6-5-1990 respondent No,1 was called upon to furnish report and parawise comments. A restraint order was also passed that " in the meanwhile, the land in dispute shall not be disposed of". On 13-11-1990 the respondent was directed to dispose of the pending matter within two months in accordance with law. Again on 11- 5-1994 it was impressed upon him that final order be passed within 15 days. It is the common stance that no final order has yet been passed by the respondent and instead certain reports have been submitted to the Board of Revenue, reference to which has been made by the learned counsel for respondents Nos,3 to 12. Amended writ petition was tiled later seeking direction for confirmation of the proposal so claimed by the petitioners and that Mutation No,19888 and Mutation No,19889 sanctioned during the pendency of the writ petition be declared as without lawful authority.
2. Number of persons have jumped into these proceedings to be impleaded as party resting their claim on some orders or complaining procrastination by the authorities in the matter. Mr. M. Anwar Bhindar, Advocate claims that part of the land had been allotted to his clients in the year 1955, which was not available for disposal in favour of any person thereafter. Whereas Mr. M.A. Zafar, Advocate disputes the very proposal claimed to have been made in favour of the petitioners. Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, Advocate pleads his case that his clients were entitled to purchase the same. The fact of the matter remains that no final order has yet been passed by any of the competent Authority in the matter despite orders dated 13-11-1990 and 11-5-1994, mentioned above. It is stated that the matter is now lying with the Member Board of Revenue/ Chief Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer. There are certain reports submitted by the Deputy Commissioners of the District from time to time, which are at variance with each other. The matter undoubtedly entails factual probe and enquiry which is to be resolved and determined by the competent forum by taking into consideration all the facts and examining the original record. This Court in writ jurisdiction cannot pass any order that may denude the competent Authority of his jurisdiction nor can arrogate to itself such functions. The controversy falls within the factual realm, which should be resolved by the authority concerned. I have, therefore. refrained from making any observation that could possibly affect or prejudice the rights and merits of either party. In this view of the matter the appropriate course is that the learned Member Board of Revenue/ Chief Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer should himself dispose of the matter in accordance with law after affording opportunity of due representation and hearing to the parties concerned.
4. As a result of the above, this petition is disposed with the above observations. The parties should cause their representation on 27-4-2002 before the learned Member Board of Revenue/ Chief Settlement Commissioner/Notified Officer who will proceed with the matter and dispose of the same in accordance with law. No order as to costs.