Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, J.--This brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that the petitioner filed declaration which was accepted by the authorities under Martial Law Regulation No, 115 of 1972. The Chairman Federal Land Commission on the basis of report of the inspection team directed the authorities to initiate proceedings against the petitioner vide order. dated 5.10.1976.
The Deputy Land Commissioner, Hafizabad issued a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the D.L.C.,. Hafizabad who decided the case in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 20.6.1995 by holding that the petitioner is entitled to keep 14000 produce index units of the land in question under Martial Law Regulation, 1972 whereas the petitioner is owner of land measuring 13384 P.I units. Subsequently, Secretary Punjab and Commission sent a latter to the D.L.C., Hafizabad to initiate proceedings against the petitioner vide latter dated 13.7.1995 who intimated the Secretary Punjab Land Commission vide letter dated 20.10.1997 that the land of the petitioner is also situated in District Okara and he has already decided the case in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 20.6.1995. The Secretary Punjab Land Commission has sent letter to the D.L.C., Okara to initiate proceedings against the petitioner vide letter dated 31.10.1997. Hence this Constitutional petition.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that certain provisions of Martial Law Regulation No, 115 were declared un-Islamic by the Honourable Supreme Court in Qazalbash Waqf and others vs. Chief Land Commissioner, Lahore and others (PLD 1990 S.C. 99). in which cut-off date was fixed by the Honourable Supreme Court as 23.3.1990. Therefore, assumption of jurisdiction by the respondent is without lawful authority. In support of his contention he relied upon Muhammad Yousaf Ali Shah vs. Federal Land Commission (1995 CLC 369).
3. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khattana, learned Addl A.G. submits that Chairman Federal Land Commission passed the order against the petitioner on 5.10.1976. Therefore, pleas raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner have no force. He further submits that no final order has been passed against the petitioner. Therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable.
4. The writ petition was admitted for regular hearing on 19.11.1998. The case was fixed on various dates and the last date of hearing was 3.11.2003. Mr. Bilal Bashir, Advocate for Respondent No, 1 entered appearance and got adjournment of file written statement which was. allowed. The representative of Respondent No, 1 submits that he does not know the counsel of the Federal Land Commission. The name 'of the learned counsel of Federal Land Commission is mentioned in the cause list. Despite repeated calls nobody entered appearance on behalf of Federal Land Commission. The message was also sent to the office of Bar Association but in spite of the message Mr. Bilal Bashir, Advocate did not turn up. It is pertinent to mention here that all the respondents did not file written statement in terms of order dated 3.11.2003. Therefore, we have no Other alternative except to pass ex-parte order against Respondent No, 1.
5. We have given our anxious consideration of the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
6.It is admitted fact that respondents failed .to file written statement till date in spite of various notices sent to them. It is settled principle of law that principles of. C.P.C. are applicable in the Constitutional proceedings as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Hussain Bakhsh vs. Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1970 S.C. 1). In absence of the written statement the factual pleas taken by the petitioner in the contents of the writ petition be considered as admitted by the respondents. It is also admitted fact that Honourable Supreme Court has declared certain provisions of Martial Law Regulation No, 115 'of 1972 as un-Islamic in Qaialbash Trust's case supra (PLD 1990 S.C. 99). The cut off date was also fixed by the Honourable Supreme Court for taking necessary action qua the Martial Law Regulation to be amended in terms of the injunctions of Islam. The respondents did not amend the Martial Law Regulation. Therefore after the cut off date Respondent. No, 2 has no lawful authority to issue a letter to the D.L.C., Okara to initiate proceedings against the petitioner coupled with the fact that the D.L.C. Hafizabad has finally decided the matter in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 20.6.1995 which order has not been challenged by the respondents before any higher authorities. Therefore, respondents are not in a position to take benefit of the fact that the petitioner has also land in District Okara, as the matter is past and closed transaction in view of order of D.L.C. Hafizabad dated 20.6.1995. As such the respondents have no lawful authority to initiate proceedings against the petitioner on the well known principle of past and closed transaction as per law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Noor Din vs. Chairman Mian Sahib Graveyard Committee (PLD 1973 S.C. 17). In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition is accepted and impugned letter dated 31.10.1997 is set aside. Parties are left to bear their own costs.