Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1726/R of 1962, decided on 25th May 1964.

‑Chief Settlement Commissioner delegating his power to Subordinate Settlement Authority under S. 30 (2) Order passed by such Authority under delegated power‑Held, subject to appeal and revision by Chief Settlement Commissioner under Ss. 18 & 19.

Abdul Ghani v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Com missioner Pakistan and another P L D 1964 Lah. 214 fol.

Dr. Nasim Hassan Shah with Khalilur Rehman for Petitioners.

Ch. Qamar‑ud‑Din for Respondent No. 3.

Date of hearing: 25th May 1964.

The two petitioners Mst. Hassan Bi and Atar Bi claim to be the heirs of one Manila son of Shame Singh and are aggrieved by an order dated the 16th of November 1962 passed by Mr. Muhammad Ziaullah Khan, Additional Rehabilitation Com missioner, West Pakistan, Lahore, by which he cancelled the allotment of agricultural land previously made by the authorities in favour of Mamla in village Chiriwan of Tahsil Kasur of the Lahore District. It appears that allegations had been made from time to time that Manila was living in India and that land had been obtained in his name by fraud by Mamla's brother‑in‑law Lambardar Yasin Khan who, it may be stated, is the husband of petitioner Mst. Hassan Bi. This allegation was made in the year 1955 before the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner but was not accepted by him and land was provisionally allotted in the name of Mamla. The same allotment was then confirmed in the year 1959 on receipt of revenue records from India relating to Alwar State to which Mamh. belonged at the time of Partition. However the respondent Abdur Rehman persistently pursued this matter with the authorities and at last on the 16th of November 1960 he succeeded in persuading the learned Additional Rehabili tation Commissioner to hold that Mamla had never come to Pakistan and that the allotment in his name had been obtained by fraud.

2. The present petitioners filed a revision petition before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner which was, however, dismissed by Mr. Ali Ahmad on the 18th of August 1962 holding that an order passed by an Additional Settlement‑Com missioner under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was not open to revision, as it was passed in the exercise of the delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner.

3. Dr. Nasim Hassan Shah, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has raised several contentions with regard to the legality of the orders passed by Raja Ziaullah Khan as well as Mr. Ali Ahmad and has also addressed lengthy arguments on the merits of the case, contending that Mamla had, in fact, migrated to Pakistan and that he went to India only temporarily and accordingly, the allotment in his name was not liable to can cellation.

4. I do not think it necessary to deal with the merits of the case for the reason that, in my view, the order passed by Mr. Ali Ahmad as Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore Division, .is erroneous in law and has to be set aside on that ground. It is common ground between the parties and the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities that Mr. Muhammad Ziaullah Khan, Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Com missioner, was acting as a delegate of the Chief Settlement Com missioner under section 10 of the Act when he ordered the can cellation of Manila's allotment of land. The question, therefore, is whether such an order is immune from the appellate and revisional jurisdiction conferred by sections 18 and 19 of the Act. Section 10 of the Act lays down that "if the Chief Settlement Commissioner is satisfied that an allotment has been obtained by any person by means of fraud or false representation then, without prejudice to any other penalty to which such person may be liable, the Chief Settlement Commissioner may pass an order cancelling the allotment, or reducing the area of the land allotted or such other order as he may deem fit; provided that no order under this section shall be passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner without giving the person affected thereby a reasonable oppor tunity of being heard". According to subsection (2) of section 30 of the Act, "the Chief Settlement Commissioner may, by general or special order and subject to such conditions as may be laid down in the order, delegate all or any of his functions under this Act to any other Settlement Authority except the powers specified in Chapter VI of the Act". It is clear that the delegation of the power to cancel allotment has been made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under the provision of law just cited.

5. The question whether the orders made by the Subordinate Settlement Authorities in exercise of delegated powers of .the Chief Settlement Commissioner under the Displaced Persons (Compen sation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 are open to appeal and revision etc., as provided in that Act, was examined by a Full Bench of this Court in Abdul Ghani v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan and another (P L D 1964 Lah. 214), and it was held that "orders made by the Assistant Settlement Commissioners, Deputy Settlement Commissioners, Additional Settlement Com missioners and Settlement Commissioners in exercise of the powers delegated to them by the Chief Settlement Commissioner (section 31(2)) are as much subject to his general superintendence and control under section 9 of the Act and open to scrutiny in an appeal or revision under sections 19 and 20 of the Act as the orders made by them in exercise of their normal functions under the Act". It was further held that "while delegating its powers to another authority the competent authority does not part with those powers altogether and may, therefore, impose such con ditions on the exercise of those powers by its delegate as it may deem fit * * * * * * *".

6. Although the case before their Lordships of the Full Bench was one arising under the Displaced Persons (Compensa tion and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 which deals with the disposal of urban evacuee property, yet it seems to me that the conclusion reached in that case is equally applicable to the orders passed under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 in pursuance of powers delegated to subordinate authorities by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The actual order of delegation has not been produced before me in this case by either of the parties, but it is not contended that the delegation order contains any pro hibition against appeal or revision as the case may be. On this view of the matter. I consider that the order passed by the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on the 16th of November 1960 was subject to appeal and revision even though it was passed in his capacity as a delegate of the Chie Settlement Commissioner. The learned Settlement Commissioner erred in law in refusing to entertain the petitioners' revision petition. In fact, it seems to me that the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner being the first order in this behalf, an appeal, and not a revision, would lie against it.

7. For the reasons given above, I accept this petition and set aside the order of Mr. Ali Ahmad, Settlement and Rehabilita tion Commissioner, as being of no legal effect, and direct that the petitioners should be heard in appeal by the authority next above the Additional Settlement Commissioner. There will be no order as to costs.

S. Q.

Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.