Order dated 23-7-1984 passed by respondent No,1 whereby he ordered the review of Mutation No,2439 dated 29-3-1978 has been assailed through this petition under Article 9 of the then Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, for back of jurisdiction qua the subject-matter.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are vendees from Mehboob Alam the allottee of the land and are in cultivating possession since 1970. A Mukhbari application under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was held filed by Salehoon and others that allotment of land at Khata No,48 of RL-II Village Kalianpur, Tehsil Bhalwal, District Sargodha was bogus and fraudulent. That Mukhbari, petition was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sargodha on 12-2-1971. The said order having not been challenged any further became final, however, another Mukhbari application was filed by Raja Muhammad Hayat and others, which was accepted on 14-5-1973 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land)/Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha. Against this order revision petition was filed by the present petitioners which was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) on 19-12-1974 on his view of the matter with the repeal of the evacuee laws the same was not competent. The matter was then agitated by the petitioners before this Court through Writ Petition No,44-R of 1975 which petition was accepted vide judgment dated 12-7-1976 with the direction to the learned Settlement Commissioner to decide petitioners' revision petition in accordance with law. The matter thus was taken up by the learned Settlement Commissioner (Lands) who accepted the revision petition on 26-12-1977 and set aside the order dated 14-5-1973.
This order was not assailed any further and apparently became final. There was yet another Mukhbari application now filed by Raja Liaqat Hayat which culminated in passing of the impugned order dated 23-7-1(784. Stating the above mentioned background, of the repeated Mukhbari applications and orders passed, the learned counsel contends that respondent No,1 is passing the impugned order acted wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as he could not sit in appeal over the order earlier passed by the Settlement Commissioner on 26-12-1977 which had become final and that even no such Mukhbari application was competent after the repeal of evacuee laws, which was filed in the year 1983. Reference has been made to Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office and others v. Bashir Ahmad and 9 others (1977 SCM R 208). From the respondent side only the learned counsel for Salehoon respondent No,4 has appeared whereas the learned counsel for rest of the respondents despite the fact that their names duly appear in the cause list laws not entered appearance. It is contended by the later that when there are allegations of fraud and forgery the matter can be entertained at any stage. Relies upon Harmat and others v. Muhammad Khan and others (1994 SCM R 565). It may be mentioned that despite pendency of the petition since long no comments, reply or written statement has been filed controverting the averments of the petition.
3. The brief resume of the Mukhbari applications filed and decided by the authorities from time to time would make it abundantly clear that after the dismissal of the first Mukhbari application on 12- 2-1971 the fate of the second Mukhbari application also ended in dismissal on 26-12-1977 when the revision petition filed by the petitioners was accepted by the learned Settlement Commissioner.
That order was not challenged anymore and became final. It was, however, another Mukhbari application filed in the year 1983 which gave rise to the impugned order dated 23-7-1984. The perusal of the impugned order shows that respondent No,1 proceeded to adopt the reasoning which prevailed with the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Sargodha on 14-5-1973. The said order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) was, however, set aside by the Settlement Commissioner on 26-12-1977 in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. Surprisingly respondent No,1 who was acting as Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) in the departmental hierarchy proceeded to take the view that "so far order dated 26-12-1977 is concerned venture of differ with it as the same was ex parte." Such an approach to the matter was wholly unwarranted and contrary to the scheme of statutory hierarchy envisaged by law inasmuch as an officer in the lower hierarchy could to countermand the order of the Settlement Commissioner. It may be observed that finality attached and attained to a judicial order could not be eroded or stultified on the bare unsubstantiated allegation of fraud and forgery, particularly when earlier two rounds of litigation had ended in favour of the petitioners. This was the third round of Mukhbari applications which commenced in the year 1983, after the repeal of the evacuee laws.
Such repeated challenges are not contemplated by law and if permitted would result in endless litigation. In the instant case respondent No, 1 in his endeavor and zeal to correct the revenue record has acted wholly without jurisdiction in nullifying the order dated 26-12-1977 passed by the then Settlement Commissioner which he could not do. The order impugned thus is unsustainable in law and is declared as such.
' In view of the above this petition is accepted. No order as to costs.