Find a Lawyer

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 9th February 1971, in Civil Revision No. 138 of 1970).

Constitution of Pakistan (1962),

Art. 58(3)‑Special Leave to appeal‑Decision of High Court that rate of price demanded by settlement authorities for the land transferred was discriminatory and unfair and therefore reducing it to the rate fixed in similar cases and ordering retention by petitioner of only so much land as was reason ably required by him backed by evidence and passed after considering relevant law‑Petition for special leave to appeal dismissed‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss. 13 & 12(b).

Akhtar Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Vakil Ahmad Kidwai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 19th August 1971.

SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑

In this petition for special leave the petitioner has been aggrieved by an order of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner which was communicated to the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary (Rural) by a letter dated 13‑4‑1970. The relevant part of the order is as follows :‑

"The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner is pleased to sanction sale of agricultural land measuring 3 acres 31 ghuntas out of Survey No. 65, Deh Drigh, Tappa Malir, Taluka and District Karachi at the rate of Rs. 5.75 per sq. yard under section 12(b) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act of 1958 in favour of Mr. Riaz Muhammad Khan, Proprietor, Eleazar Trading Corporation, Karachi."

The petitioner's grievances are that the price of the land is unreasonable and that the area ordered to be transferred to the petitioner has been reduced without any justification inasmuch as he had been originally allotted and had been in possession of a larger area.

In 1949 in pursuance of a Small Scale Industries Scheme different areas of lands were allotted by the Deputy Director, Supply and Development Department, to three firms namely; Messrs Afaco Co., Messrs Pak. Carpet Industries and the petitioner's firm, Eleazar Trading Corporation on 16th and 17th December 1949, and 11th April 1950 respectively. The petitioner's firm was allotted 5 acres of land which ultimately bore Survey No. 65. The petitioner put up constructions on the disputed land and applied for its permanent transfer.

On 22‑5‑1964 under a Notification issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner a large area of land including the lands allotted to the petitioner and the aforesaid two firms was directed to be treated as building sites for disposal under section 13 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. As a result of this Notification the disputed land, among others, ceased to be agricultural land and was required to be transferred by public auction as building sites. This Notification was modified by Notification dated 2‑6‑1965 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner whereby it was ordered that the land on which a permanent building has been constructed must be deemed to have been excluded from the purview of the Notification dated 22‑5‑1964. In the copy of the Notification dated 2‑6‑1965 forwarded to the Settlement Commissioner, Karachi the following directions were added :

"The pieces of land on which permanent building has been constructed may, on an application made in this behalf, be transferred to the persons who have constructed such building under section 12(b) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, with the approval of the Chief Settlement Commis sioner. The price to be charged which will be the prevailing market value as defined in Settlement Scheme No. 6 will also be approved by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in each case."

In 1966 and 1967 respectively, the lands originally allotted to Messrs Afaco and Messrs Pak Carpet Industries were transferred to them at a price of Rs. 3 per square yard. The petitioner's case for transfer, however, remained pending until 6th April 1970, when the Chief Settlement Commissioner passed the following order :

"Any one who may be in unauthorised possession of an industrial area in Kyc. whether he essentially needs it just now for his specific business or not will like to retain it and I find our Kyc. office more or less having dittoed this thinking. However, in view of the demarcation made by the Settlement Commissioner, Kyc. after having got the area inspected, we may agree to sell 3 acres 31 ghuntas to the firm, as proposed, and no more.

The price of land in the area has been going up fastly.

We cannot, in fairness to the compensation pool sell away the land at less than Rs. 5.75 per sq. yard, being the average.....auction price of land in the vicinity of this survey number . . .. . Lands in the neighbourhood of this very Survey number have fetched as higher as Rs. 9.50 per sq. yard."

On the basis of this order of the Chief Settlement Commis sioner the impugned communication dated 13‑4‑1970 was sent to the petitioner by the Deputy Secretary (Rural).

In the revisional application before the High Court Messrs Afaco and Messrs Pak Carpet Industries challenged the legality of the price of Rs. 3 per square yard on the ground that by virtue of the Notification dated 2‑6‑1965 the price which could be charged was the market value as defined in the Settlement Scheme No. 6 framed under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, that is, riot more than Re. 1 per square yard. The High Court dismissed the petitions and held that section 12(b) of the said Act empowered the Chief Settlement Commissioner to sell the land without providing any guidelines as to the manner in which the price was to be determined.

In the present case the learned Judges of the High Court, on a consideration of all aspects of the case, have held that the cases of all the three allottees viz. Messrs Afaco, Messrs Pak Carpet Industries and the petitioner, should be considered together having regard to the common background and the common range of time. Thus viewed the High Court found that the increase in the rate of price demanded from the petitioner was dis criminatory and unfair. The High Court observed that section 12(b) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, did not enable the Chief Settlement Commissioner to disregard reasonableness, and uniformity of terms towards all cases which came up before him for decision.

As to the reduction in the area of the land the High Court observed that the petitioner could only get as much area as was reasonably required by him and on a consideration of the plan, prepared by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner found that the petitioner did not require more than the area allotted to him.

The High Court accordingly partly allowed the petitioner's revisional application, and directed that the same price should be charged from the petitioner as from the aforesaid two firms, that is, Rs. 3 per square yard. The Court did not consider it fit to interfere with the reduction of the areas.

We, therefore, do not find any substance in the contentions of the petitioner that the High Court did not consider the relevant law and evidence.

The petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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