' Order dated 30-8-1986 passed by respondent No,3 on a revision petition filed by respondent No,1 has been assailed through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 inter alia on the ground that respondent No,3 acted wholly without jurisdiction in entertaining the revision and passing the impugned order as no such revision petition was competent before him against the order of the Notified Officer passed on 15-6-1986.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that order dated 15-6-1986 was passed by the Notified Officer in pursuance of the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan against which order no revision was' competent before respondent No,3. It is further contended that the order passed by the Notified Officer was perfectly legal, supported by the material on the record, which had been passed after spot inspection and was illegally interfered by respondent No,3. Respondent No,1 was served and was represented, who died and his legal representatives were brought on record but none appears today. The petition thus has been heard ex parte.
3. Dispute regarding property bearing No, B.XXVII 2S-62, situated in Mandi Loharan (Old Ghala Mandi), Gujranwala had reached Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.A. No,131 of 1985, which was heard and disposed of by their Lordships on 26-6-1985 on the basis of a consensual arrangement between the parties that "they would be satisfied if the respondent is allowed to retain the property auctioned to him i,e, property mentioned in the survey list (copy attached at page-50 of the paper book), which has been described as a "godown/2 rooms" and has been shown as being (at that time) occupied by Ghulam Rasool, and for which the rent was shown as Rs,174/10." The appeal was disposed of with the direction "that the relevant Settlement Officer/Notified Officer should demarcate the premises in question in the presence of the parties or their representatives and hand over to the respondent the portion of the said property which has been shown in the survey list to have been, at the relevant time, in, occupation of Ghulam Rasool son of Shah Muhammad and the rent whereof was assessed at Rs,174/10. The remaining portion of the said property shall be given to the appellants" The matter was thus taken up by the Notified Officer who observed that "in view of the divergent contentions and factual controversy I was constrained to visit the spot and inspected the portions of the property in occupation of the respective parties. Both the portions were found to be independent, presently, one in the occupation of the legal representatives of the late Ilam Din and Abdul Rehman, and the c ther was in occupation of Muhammad Sharif, the transferee from Master Sardar Ellahi applicant. The portion in occupation of Muhammad Sharif was got opened and it was found to be consisting of two rooms; the smaller situated behind the bigger room, having a partition wall between with a rudiment of two windows and a central door (site plan attached). These facts were found to be in consonance with the contentions of the respondents and as such I was satisfied that Master Sardar Ellahi was given in auction only this portion of the property which in turn he has alienated in favour of Muhammad Sharif. I also inquired from Sher Muhammad occupant of the Chobara situated on the disputed portion of the property who also verified that Ghulam Rasool son of Shah Muhammad was occupying the property which is presently occupied by Muhammad Sharif. A perusal of the documents like Survey Register, auction list, and, the P.T.D. Issued in favour of Master Sardar Ellahi led to 'irresistible conclusion that the claim of applicant Master Sardar Ellahi is mala fide and the same is based on greed."
' Having come to the above conclusion he proceeded to order transfer of the portion in occupation of the petitioners. This was vide order dated 15-6-1986. Late Master Sardar Ellahi challenged that order through revision petition purported to have been filed under para.31 of the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of .Vailable Urban Properties, 1977, which, as mentioned above, was accepted by respondent No,3. Question of jurisdiction, the competency of revision petition before respondent No,3 and validity and vires of the said order has been the focal point. Perusal of the relevant provisions i,e, para. 31 of the Scheme framed in pursuance of section 3(1) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 would show that initially vide para.31 of Chapter VIII of the Scheme, revision was provided before the Administrator (Residual Properties) against an order passed by the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties). This power, however, was curtailed through an amendment made in the scheme on 28-7-1984 and sub-para.(i) of para.31 was substituted as under:--
(1) The Additional Commissioner (Revenue of"the Division (COmmissioner in case of Lahore Division) may at any time suo motu, or on an application made to him within 15 days of an order of confirmation or rejection of an auction by the competent authority, call for the record of such property for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness or legality of Such an order, and after hearing the affected parties pass such order in relation thereto as he may deem fit.
(underlined by me for its relevance)
' It shows that the revision was only competent qua an order of confirmation or rejection of an auction. As noted above order in this case, which was assailed in revision before respondent No,3, was passed by the Notified Officer on 15-6-1986 after the above amendment in para.31 had been made and was in force. Order dated 15-6-1986 did not fall within the ambit of para.31 of the scheme, nor the said provision can be stretched to that extent. It is plain that no revision petition was competent before respondent No,3 at the time when it was filed and decided.
There is another aspect to be taken note of qua the legality and jurisdictional error in the order passed by respondent No,3, which is, that the Notified Officer (respondent No,2) had passed the order in pursuance of the direction of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The order so passed by the Notified Officer was not revisable nor was any revision competent against the same after the repeal of the evacuee laws. The learned counsel submits that the question of jurisdiction was indeed raised before respondent No,3, who, however, passed the impugned order without adverting to the same. Be that as it may, the order having been passed in incompetent proceedings which cannot but be regarded as wholly without jurisdiction and without lawful authority. In view thereof I do not consider it necessary to broach upon the other contentions of the learned counsel.
'In view of the above order dated 30-8-1986 passed by respondent No,3 is declared as of no legal effect. The writ petition is accordingly accepted. No order as to costs.