Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 249/R of 1974, decided on 15th April 1975.

----Ss. 4, 11 & 15‑Evacuee land acquired by Government in exchange for State land but subsequently by agreement between claimants allottees and Government allowed to be so disposed of finally as may be determined by a Settlement Commissioner nominated by Chief Settlement Commissioner‑Nominated Settlement Commissioner con firming allotment to petitioners but another Settlement Commissioner subsequently setting aside such confirmation‑Nominated Settlement Commissioner whose decision was agreed to be accepted by all concerned parties to be final, having confirmed land in favour of petitioners, another Settlement Commissioner, held, was devoid of jurisdiction to reopen matter‑Designation of a Settlement Commis sioner for purpose‑Did not invest all Settlement Commissioners with requisite power‑Property having not vested in compensation pool, subsequent Settlement Commissioner could, for such additional reason also, have no jurisdiction over corpus of property.

The precise position of the case is that after the exchange, which stands intact, the property had ceased to be evacuee and come to be vested in the Provincial Government. The Provincial Government to avoid dislocation, a very good reason indeed, offered that the land may be confirmed in accord ance with the law and the scheme to the claimants by a Settlement Commissioner, to be nominated by the Chief Settlement Commissioner whose decision was to be final. Such a Settlement Commissioner was nominated who confirmed the land to the petitioners. The nominated Settlement Commis sioner having confirmed the land and whose decision was accepted to be final, there was no authority or jurisdiction in the Settlement authorities to reopen the matter. The fact that the designated authority was a Settlement Commissioner did not mean that his entire department with its hierarchy of officers had been vested with jurisdiction. The designated authority could, as well, have been an officer of another department and in that event it is obvious that the Settlement authorities would have had no jurisdiction over his decision. Moreover, the property did not vest in the Compensation Pool over which alone the Settlement authorities have jurisdiction. It vested in the Provincial Government. Therefore, the settlement authorities had no jurisdiction over the corpus of the property at all.

S. M. Masood for Petitioners.

Salahud Din Mustafa and Maqbool Elahi Malik for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 15th April 1975.

This order will dispose of the following writ petitions as these involve' identical facts and common question of law: Writ Petition No. 249/11 of 1974, Writ Petition No. 250/11 of 1974, Writ Petition No. 251/11 of 1974, Writ Petition No. 252/11 of 1974, Writ Petition No. 309/11 of 1974, Writ Petition No. 369/11 of 1974, Writ Petition No. 381 of 1974, Writ Petition No. 401/R of 1974, Writ Petition No. 422/11 of 1974 and Writ Petition No. 438/11 of 1974.

The pieces of land in dispute were initially evacuee property. These alongwith other land were required for extension of Lyallpur City. The Custodian of Evacuee Property, with the concurrence of the Central Government, exchanged a large tract of land including the pieces of land in question with State property. Thus, these areas came to be vested in the Provincial Government. Various persons challenged this exchange in the erstwhile West Pakistan High Court. On behalf of the Provincial Government, on instructions, the Assistant Advocate‑General made a statement before the High Court that if the petitioners' claim were available in the revenue estate, the Provincial Government was wilting to permit the land in dispute to be confirmed to them in accordance with the relevant law and the scheme applicable to avoid dislocation of genuine claimants. To give effect to this, it was agreed by the learned counsel for the parties, i.e. the petitioners, Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Provincial Govern ment that "the best course would be to let the case be examined by a learned Settlement Commissioner to be nominated by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to determine the disputed question of fact i.e. whether the claims of the applicants were pending in the estate," as well as the entitlement of the petitioners in accordance with the relevant law and the scheme. In case the learned Settlement Commissioner finds that the petitioners are entitled to the transfer of the land on account of their claim being pending in this estate on the date of the institution of the writ petition, he shall make the necessary order irrespective of the fact, that the land no longer forms part of the compensation pool. If, however, he comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to the transfer of the land, because of the transfer of their claim to another revenue estate, he shall reject the petitioners' prayer for transfer of the disputed land. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General wishes to make it clear that this concession is being specially made available by the Provincial Government in the interest of the settlement of claimant displaced persons. It is, further, agreed by the parties that the decision of the learned Settlement Commissioner shall be final in so far as the Settlement Courts are concerned." The petition was accordingly disposed of on 10.6‑1970.

3. In pursuance of the above, the matter was taken up by the Settlement Commissioner on 12‑9‑1972 and he confirmed the land in dispute to the various petitioners. Subsequently, another Settlement Commissioner on 30‑1‑1974 set aside the confirmation on the grounds like that the petitioners were not the temporary allottees of the area concerned or their units were pending in the Sadar (District Headquater) Office, or in some other estate.

4. Some persons, placed like the petitioners, filed a Writ Petition No. 230/11 of 1974, Mir Muhammad and others v. Government of Pakistan and others, in this Court challenging the subsequent order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 30‑1‑1974. The impugned order was found to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the writ petition was accepted vide order dated 13‑2‑1975.

5. The precise position of the case is that after the exchange, which stands intact, the property had ceased to be evacuee and come to be vested in the Provincial Government. The Provincial Government to avoid dis location, a very good reason indeed, offered that the land may be confirmed in accordance with the law and the scheme to the claimants by a Settlement Commissioner, to be nominated by the Chief Settlement Commissioner whose decision was to be final. Such a Settlement Commissioner was no minated who confirmed the land to the petitioners. The nominated Settlement Commissioner having confirmed the land and whose decision was accepted to be final, there was no authority or jurisdiction in the Settlement authorities to reopen the matter. The fact that the designated authority was a Settlement Commissioner did not mean that his entire department with its hierarchy of Officers had been vested with jurisdiction. The designated authority could, as well, have been an Officer of another department and in that event it is obvious that the Settlement authorities would have bad no jurisdiction over his decision. Moreover, the property did not vest in the Compensation Pool over which alone the Settlement authorities have juris diction. It vested in the Provincial Government. Therefore, the Settlement authorities had no jurisdiction over the corpus of the property at all. The Provincial Government, true to its offer and desire not to bring about dislocation, had not objected to the confirmation in favour of the petitioners. The Settlement authorities had no jurisdiction to step in and, intermeddle.

6. For the foregoing reasons, and respectfully following the decision in Writ Petition No. 230/11 of 1974 referred to above, the impugned orders of the Settlement Commissioner dated 30‑1‑1974 are hereby declared to be without lawful and of no legal effect. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

S. A. H 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.