' The facts are that Abdul Ghafoor respondent No,2 applied for transfer of Property No,337 situate in Chak No,779/G.B., Pir Mahal in the year 1959. On the basis of his application, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lyallpur vide order dated 3-12-1965 transferred the disputed property to respondent No,2 under Scheme VI treating the same to be evacuee property. Although the price of the plot was fixed in the order dated 3-12-1965, respondent No,2 deposited the price of this plot on 26-1-1972.
P.T.D. Was issued in his favour on 16-11-1974. The Deputy Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property moved an application under section 8 of Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act 1975 before Chairman, E.T.P.B. For a declaration that the disputed property was Evacuee Trust Property and was not liable to be transferred as Evacuee Property by the. Deputy Settlement Commissioner in favour of Abdul Ghafoor respondent No,2. It was contended that the property vested in a Gurduwara and could not be transferred under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The parties impleaded in the said application were:
(a) Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lyallpur, and
(b) Abdul Ghafoor son of Khair-ud-Din.
2. The Chairman, E.T.P.B. Decided the application under section 8 of Act of 1975 vide order dated 1- 6-1976. It was held that the plot in question is attached to Sikh Gurduwara and was thus Evacuee Trust Property. Respondent No,2 had also accepted the status of the property as Evacuee Trust Property but requested to have his P.T.D. Validated under section 10 of the Act XIII of 1975. The Chairman, E.T.P.B. Validated the P.T.D. In favour of respondent No,2 mainly on two grounds:--
(i) That Abdul Ghafoor was not issued any notice or intimation for depositing the price of the said plot which was deposited by him on his own on 26-1-1972. It was also held that there was no justification for the Settlement Department to have issued PTD to respondent No,2 on 16-11-1974 when the price had already been paid on 26-1-1972;
(ii) that the plot was rural in nature and that as Abdul Ghafoor was in possession of the same he was even otherwise entitled to its transfer without payment.
3. A revision under section 17 of Act XIII of 1975 was filed on 23-7-1980 by Choudhary Muhammad Ali and Ghulam Muhammad before the Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs.- Only the Chairman, E.T.P.B. And Abdul Ghafoor was impleaded as a party, although, the D.S.C., Lyallpur was a principal party before the Chairman, E.T.P.B. The Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs considered the said revision as a suo motu revision and treating it to be within time, came to the conclusion that the P.T.D. Issued on 10-11-1974 i,e,, after the target date of 30-6-1968 could not be validated under section 10 of the Act. As a result the order dated 1-6-1976 of the Chairman, E.T.P.B. Was set aside and the property stood restored to the E.T.P.B., Lahore.
4. Liaquat Ali respondent No,1 claimed to have purchased the property in dispute during the pendency of the above mentioned civil revision before the Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs from Abdul Ghafoor through a registered sale-deed. On coming to know of the adverse orders passed by the Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs in revision dated 22-10-1983 and 28-12-1983, Liaquat Ali filed a suit for declaration that he was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the property in question and that the aforesaid orders passed in revision were illegal and ineffective upon his rights. Respondent No, 1/plaintiff did not implead any functionary of the Settlement Department as a party. Respondent No,2 (defendant No,1) conceded the suit of the plaintiff. The functionaries of the Evacuee Trust Property Board contested the suit on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter and that the revisional order passed under section 17 of the Act XIII of 1975 was final and conclusive. On merits it was contended that as the PTD in favour of Abdul Ghafpor was not issued prior to the target date of 30-6-1968. The said PTD could not be validated under section 10 of the Act XIII of 1975. It was also contended that neither respondent No,2 had any lawful title in the disputed property nor respondent No,1 was a bona fide purchaser and did not acquire any better title. The trial Court found that the revision filed on 23-7- 1980 did not qualify to be a suo motu revision as it was filed by two individual aggrieved persons and as such was not exempt from the period of limitation. According to the learned Civil Judge as the revision was barred by time any order passed thereupon was a nullity in the eye of law. The order of validation passed by the Chairman, E.T.P.B. Dated 1-6-1976 was upheld and the validation of P.T.D. In favour of Abdul Ghafoor was maintained. The respondent No,1 namely Liaquat Ali was however, not found to be a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. Nevertheless finding that Abdul Ghafoor had a valid transferable title, the suit of respondent No,1 was decreed on 21-12-1989.
The petitioners preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 1-7-1991. The learned Appellate Court also found that the revision petition before the Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs was barred by limitation and that the orders dated 22-10-1983 and 28-12-1983 were thus illegal and void. It also held that the Civil Court had the necessary jurisdiction.
5. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that respondent No,1 had admittedly purchased the property in question through a registered sale-deed on 17-1-1983 which was during the pendency of the proceedings before the Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs. According to him on the principle of lis pendens respondent No,1 was bound by the orders passed by the Federal Government and could not turn around to challenge the same once adverse order was passed against to his vendor. He also contended that the revision under section 17 of Act XIII of 1975 was lawfully treated as suo motu and findings of both the lower Courts that the said revision was filed by an aggrieved person and was thus time-barred having been filed beyond a period of 15 days, is fallacious. He further contended that it has been held that respondent No,1 was not a bona fide purchaser for value and that in this view of the matter also the suit was not liable to be decreed.
7. Arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner have force. The respondent No,1 had purchased the property in dispute during the pendency of the revision before the Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs, as such respondent No,1 could not claim a better title than respondent No,2.
8. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that suo motu revisional power can be exercised by the revisional Court on its own as well as on information provided by a 3rd party is not without force. There is nothing on the record to suggest as to the interest of the petitioners which they claimed in the suit property. The revision petition filed by two individuals shall be tantamount to setting in motion the suo motu revisional jurisdiction of the Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs.
In this view of the matter, the mere - fact that the revisional jurisdiction was exercised upon the intimation of two individuals would not detract from the nature of suo motu jurisdiction of the revisional Court. Both the learned lower Courts fell in error in treating revision as time-barred and declaring the orders dated 22-10-1983 and 28-12-1983 to be illegal and void.
9. It is however, correct that the learned lower Courts did not decide- the controversy on merits. It was incumbent upon the. Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court to have decided whether the transferee i,e,, the respondent No,2 had paid the transfer price on his own without any notice from the Settlement Department and if so what would be its effect upon his entitlement to the suit property. Both the learned lower Courts also did not consider the effect of inaction of the Settlement Department in not issuing the necessary notice to respondent No,2. The lower Courts also erred in misconstruing the provisions of sections 8 and 10 of the Act XIII of 1975.
10. Mr. C.M. Latif Rawn, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondent has no objection, if this civil revision is allowed and the case is remanded to the trial Court for decision upon merits. In view of the above discussion, this civil revision is allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 21-12-1989 and judgment and decree dated 1-7-1991 is set aside and the case is remanded to the trial Court for decision upon merits in view of the observations hereinbefore contained. As this is an old matter the trial Court shall decide the case within six months of the receipt of this IA order. Parties to bear their own costs. ' accordingly.