Find a Lawyer

AND ANOTHER‑Respondents

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 309 of 1973, decided on 5th April 1974.

(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 13‑7‑73, in Writ Petition No. 522/R/73).

(a) West Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act (V of 1949)‑

--‑‑ Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act (III of 1956) Neither Act of 1949 nor Rules framed thereunder gave any power of verification of claims‑Claims organisation as such‑Came into existence under Act of 1956 or under Ordinance II of 1955 which was replaced by Act of 1956.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑--

--‑ Art. 199‑Writ jurisdiction‑Finding as to identity of a person based upon consideration of evidence and a finding of fact‑Not challengeable in writ jurisdiction.

Muhammad Ershad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 5th April 1974.

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑

This order may be read in continuation of our order of the 29th of March 1974.

In pursuance of the notice issued on the above‑mentioned date, Mr. Hadayat Ullah Khan Mokal, Claims Commissioner, has appeared before us and informed us that he was also simultaneously appointed Rehabilita tion Commissioner under Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance No. XIX of 1948, and at the time he held the enquiry, there was no other claims organisation in existence.

The learned counsel's argument that in this case, since a part of the claim related to lands from agreed areas, the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956, had no concern and that such claims had to be verified under the Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act, 1949, do not appear to be correct. Neither the Act of 1949 nor the Rules framed thereunder gave any such power of verification at all. The authorities set up under the said Act and Rules were, as held by the High Court in the case of Nawaz Khan v. O. S. D. Central Record Office, Lahore (P L D 1967 Lah. 42) merely reporting agencies.

In fact, as pointed out by this Court in the case of Nawab Syed Raunag Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (P L D 1973 S C 236), the name of the officer on special duty, Central Record Office, for the first time, appeared in the Supple mentary Rural Scheme No. I in 1957. Therefore, the claims organisation as such came into existence under the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956, or under the Ordinance which this Act replaced, namely, Ordinance No. II of 1955.

Another reason for holding that the claims organisation referred to by this Court in its order of the 4th of July 1967, was the claims organisation set up under the Act of 1956 is that the Court directed the claims organisation to deal with the case "under their power of determining whether a person is a "displaced person" and whether he has a claim." Now a displaced person has not been defined in the Act of 1949 but is defined in the Act of 1956. Therefore, if the intention of this Court was that the claims organisation should enquire as to whether Haidar Raza, the respondent No. 2 herein, was a displaced person or not and whether he had any claim or not, this could only be done under the Act of 1956 and, there fore, by a "Claims Organisation" set up under the Act.

The enquiry was, therefore, competently held by Sardar Hadayat Ullah Khan Mokal and no legitimate exception can be taken to his jurisdiction, particularly, since the dispute referred to him was not with regard to the quantum of the claim or the verification thereof. It must be remembered that in this case the petitioner was not challenging that the claim had not been properly verified but all that he was challenging was that Haidar Raza, who had now come forward to take advantage of this claim, was not the brother of Ahmad Raza and that, in any event, he had not filed any claim, of C which he could take advantage.

The next contention that the Claims Commissioner and the learned Judge in the High Court had disregarded the order of this Court is also without any substance. The Claims Commissioner had decided that Haidar Raza was a displaced person and that he had filed a proper claim.

The learned counsel then sought to challenge the finding of the Claims Commissioner that Haidar Raza was the person he claimed to be. This finding as to the identity of Haidar Raza is based upon a consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary, and is a finding of fact, which could not have been challenged in the writ jurisdiction.

Learned counsel has also contended that since Haider Raza himself did not personally file any claim, he cannot take advantage of the claim filed by his brother Ahmad Raza, because, the latter had also filed this claim alleging that Haidar Raza was dead. This contention seems to overlook the fact that Haidar Raza had himself filed a claim at Karachi.

Learned counsel lastly contended that in any event Haidar Raza was not a displaced person within the meaning of the Act of 1956. Subsection (I) of section 2 of this Act defines a "displaced person" as:‑

"any person who on account of the setting up of the Dominions of Pakistan and India, or on account of civil disturbances or the fear of such disturbances in any area now forming part of or occupied by India has, on or after the first day of March 1947, and before the 30th day of June 1953, left, or been displaced from his place of residence in such area and who has subsequently become a citizen of Pakistan, or is residing therein and includes any person who being a resident of any territory outside India is for that reason unable or has been made unable to manage, supervise or control any property belonging to him in India or in any area occupied by India;".

It is contended that the first paragraph of this definition has no application, because, the said Haidar Raza went away to Iraq long before the 1st of March 1947, and thereafter never returned to what is now India. It is further contended that even the second paragraph does not apply, for, ever since he returned to Karachi from Iraq in 1949, he never claimed to manage his properties, if any, in what is now India, It cannot, therefore, be said that he had "been made unable to manage, supervise or control any property belonging to him in India".

This last point, in our view, needs examination. We accordingly grant leave to consider whether the Courts below had rightly held that the said Haidar Raza was a displaced person within the meaning of the Act of 1956.

The petitioner will furnish security for costs in the sum of Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand).

Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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