' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, C.J.---The dispute giving rise to both the appeals revolves around 100 Kanals of land situated in Tehsil Noor Shah District Sahiwal. It is alleged that according to the Revenue Record pertaining to the years 1945-46, the land was owned by Muhammad Salhon Shah and Meer Shah subject to occupancy rights under section 5 of the Tenancy Act in respect of the temple known as Mandar Sant Jawhar Singh Wala. Respondents claiming themselves to be occupancy tenants in the land in dispute, obtained an order from the Collector on 17-7-1973 for the acquisition of the property rights therein and the relevant mutations in this regard were sanctioned in favour of the respondents on 25-9-1973. After five months on 19-12-1973 the Director of Land Records suggested that the said mutations were fraudulent, and on the basis thereof, the Tehsildar sought the prior approval of the Board of Revenue for correction of the record.
' Apprehending that the mutation would be cancelled, respondents instituted a civil suit seeking declaration to the effect that they were owners of the land in dispute but the Evacuee Trust Board was not impleaded as defendant in the said suit. However, during the pendency of the suit, on behalf of the appellant an application was moved for being impleaded as a party and the said application was allowed whereafter written statements were filed by the appellant but thereafter the appellant absented, and consequently, ex parte decree was passed in favour of the respondents. On behalf of the appellant, proceedings wereinitiated for setting aside the ex parte decree but without any success. Respondents appear to have applied for the execution of the decree and during the pendency thereof, the Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board initiated proceedings to determine the status of the land in dispute, and at one point of time, the Deputy Administrator applied to the Chairman for the withdrawal of the proceedings, but this request was turned down by the Chairman. Apprehending that any adverse order should not be passed by the Chairman, the respondents invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the legality of the proceedings initiated by the Chairman. Similarly, the appellant also invoked the said jurisdiction of the High Court to assail the legality of the execution proceedings and the decree passed by the Civil Court in respect of the disputed land. Both these petitions were heard and disposed together through the order impugned. The writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed declaring the proceedings initiated by the Chairman for determining the status of the said property as without any legal effect. The order impugned was challenged and leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 18-6-1995.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the judgment impugned. In fact, the High Court proceeded to allow the writ petition of the respondents on the ground that sections 8, 10, 14 and 21 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal)
Act 1975 had been declared as un-Islamic by the Federal 'Shariat Court in the case of Mufti Iftikhar- ud-Din v. Federal Government PLD 1992 FSC 188 and therefore, proceedings initiated by the Chairman were not sustainable.
3. Unfortunately, it escaped the notice of the High Court that the appeal against the decision of the Federal Shariat Court was pending in this Court which was later on accepted and order of the Federal Shariat Court was set aside by the judgment reported as Federation of Pakistan v. 1ftikhar- ud-Din 2000 SCM R 1 declaring that above-referred sections do not contain any thing contrary to the Injunctions of Holy Qur'an and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him).
4. Hafiz S.A. Rehman Advocate Supreme Court for the appellant has relied on the case reported as Evacuee Trust Property Board v. Mst. Zakia Begum 1992 SCM R 1313 wherein, it was held that the Civil Court did not have the jurisdiction in the matter. The appellant could have had recourse to the Chairman under section 8 of the Act and the ouster of jurisdiction clause contained in section 14 ibid would only be operative, if the proceedings are coram non judice and mala fide. It is now well- settled that ouster of jurisdiction under the statute has to be interpreted strictly and it can only operate, if it is shown and proved on the record that certain proceedings are without jurisdiction or coram non Mice orthe action was tainted with mala fide. Having held so, we are of the view that in this case since the relevant provisions of the Act were considered to be inoperative by the High Court on account of the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which was subsequently set aside by the Shariat Appellate Bench of this Court as stated above. Another aspect of the case would be the effect of the decree of the Civil Court and the proceedings initiated by the Chairman for determining the status of the property in dispute. Thus, by placing reliance on Mst. Zakia Begum's case, we hold that entire ex parte proceeding initiated in the Civil Court and the decree passed by it is coram non judice because in view of the ouster clause contained in section 14 of the Act, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order impugned and remand the case to the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board to determine the status of the disputed property. Respondents would be at liberty to produce the evidence if any to substantiate their case. Parties are left to bear their own costs.