JUDGMENT SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.-- 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 mals, 11 marlas 23 sq. Ft, situated in Mauza Mozang, Lahore had been allotted to him as a consequence of which, PTO dated 17.7.1963 and PTD dated 4.1.1965 had been issued. It was his case that he had paid a price of Rs. 1,34,400A to the Department. The said application was accepted by Mr. Talib Hussan, 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 in 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 above-mentioned letters/orders dated 16.2.1998, 25.7.1998, 9.1.1999 and assailed through W.P.
No. 25-R/99 whereas the Province of Punjab has challenged the order of Mr. Talib Hussan, 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 Massoct, 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 i.e.f. 1.7.1974, there was on 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 SCMR 1635), Ali Muhammad through legal heirs and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (2001 SCMR 1822) and judgment dated 23.11.2001 in W.P. No. 63- R/1995, 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 W.P. No. 200-R/1997 and the Writ Petition filed by the 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/2001 and No. *880-L/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 W.P. No. 29-R/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 i.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 Hussan, 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, order accordingly. 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 and 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, Baluchistan through its Member (RJT) and 4 others (1991 SCMR 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 SCMR 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 any where 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 dis-approved. 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' 181 9). 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 cotemporaneous law nor the allotment made pursuant thereto will have any legal efficacy. Insofar as the judgment passed by a learned Single judge of this Court in W.P.
No. 214-R/96 and W.P. No. 200-R/97, is concerned, it is respectfully observed that in view of the above-mentioned 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 W.P. No. 29-R/95 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 W.P. No. 25-R/99 hinges upon the validity or otherwise of order dated 19.12.1992.
4. As a result of the above, order dated 19.12.1992 passed by the leaned 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 W.P. No. 5564- R/99 filed by the Province of Punjab, is accepted whereas W.P. No. 25-R/99 is dismissed. No order as to costs.