Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Petition No. 249 of 1956, decided on 16th April 1957.
(On difference of opinion between Muhammad Bakhsh, J. and Munshi, J the case came up before Constantine, J. for decision.)
Jurisdiction to revoke or modify previous order after giving notice-Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance (XIX of 1948), S. 8.
The petitioner was allotted by the Additional Rehabilita tion Commissioner, a plot of land on "recommendation" of the Central Government. The allotment was provisional "until settlement of his claim under the Resettlement Scheme". The allotment was, however, terminated before such "settlement" The petitioner in the meantime with the permission of Rehabilitation Authorities and the Custodian, had transformed the plot into "Sikni" (residential) and spent a large sum on it.
Held: (Constantine, J. in substantial agreement with Munshi, J.), that a Rehabilitation Commissioner has jurisdic tion to revoke or modify a previous order of provisional allotment after giving notice to the person concerned.
[The trend of the two judgments shows that this juris diction is apart from the power of review and appears to fall under section 8, Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance (XIX of 1948)-Ed.]
Muhammad Bakhsh, J (contra) The petitioner's case is not at all covered by section 8 (2) (b) of the Rehabilitation Ordinance. Under this provision of law the Rehabilitation Authority can summarily eject a person in possession of an evacuee property in the following four cases only, viz.-
(a) If the possession has not been authorised by the Rehabilitation Authority, in other words, if the person in possession is a trespasser
(b) If the allot tee fails to observe any of the conditions of allotment;
(c) if the allot tee has subsequently been found to be an unsuitable person to hold the property so allotted ;
(d) if the property in question loses the character of an evacuee property.
The petitioner's case cannot by any stretch of imagination be brought under these provisions.
The order of termination, having been passed without notice to the petitioner, was a violation of the principle of natural justice.
The respondent by paying no attention to the fact that the petitioner had spent a large sum on the land after getting permission from the Rehabilitation Authorities and the Custodian had violated the principles of natural justice on the one hand and the principle underlying Article 15 of the Consti tution on the other.
Sharifuddin for Petitioner.
Z. C. 1Jalliani for Respondent.
MUNSHI, J.(14th December 1956).-The petitioner who is a refugee, came here from Delhi, in the year 1947. It is his case that he, through his brother Nisar Ahmad, who was acting as byname for him, entered into an agreement with Manilal Bhagilal and Ratanlal to purchase their plot of agricultural land near Malir, bearing Survey No. 41, measuring about 24000 sq. yards. Rupees 5,000 were paid as earnest money to the above vendors, who according to the peti tioner handed over possession of the plot to the petitioner's brother, who subsequently transferred the same to him. It is the case of the petitioner that he then made an applica tion to the Ministry of Refugees and Rehabilitation, Govern ment of Pakistan, for allotment of the above plot by way of compensation for the agricultural- plot left by him in India, and that on this application the Ministry directed the Rehabilitation Authorities, Karachi not to disturb the petitioner's possession. The petitioner thereafter applied to the Rehabilitation Authorities, Karachi, for the allotment of the plot to him and the Additional Rehabilitation Commis sioner directed that the plot should be allotted to him until the settlement of his claim. The question of allotment was again considered by the Additional Rehabilitation Com missioner, who, according to the petitioner, passed an order on 20th March 1955, re-allotting the plot to him until his claim for compensation for agricultural land left by him in India, was finally settled, but the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner Karachi, in contravention of the orders issued to the petitioner an order of allotment for the period of one year only. This order is dated 27th June 1955. The petitioner has further stated that sometime in 1955, he, with the permission of the Custodian, Evacuee Property, converted one acre of the said plot into 'Sikni'. On 26th May, 1956, the petitioner received an order from the Rehabilitation Commissioner, Karachi, to the effect that his allotment which was due to expire on 27th June 1956, would not be renewed, and that he was directed to deliver possession of the land to the Rehabilitation Commissioner on that date. The petitioner says that on receiving this order, he made a representation to the Ministry of Refugees and Rehabilitation, but with no result. According to the petitioner, the above order refusing the renewal of allotment, and directing him to deliver possession of the said plot of land to the Rehabilita tion Department is bad, invalid and improper. He says that in view of the order of the Additional Rehabilitation Com missioner passed on 20th March 1955, by which he was to retain the possession until final settlement of his claim, the limitation of the period of one year put by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner, by his order dated 27th June 1955, was bad, invalid and improper, it being in excess of the order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, as the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner was not competent to impose any condition as to the period of allotment. According to him, the order of the Assistant Commissioner limiting the period of allotment to one year and subsequent refusal of the Rehabilitation Commissioner to renew the allotment, and demanding delivery of possession of the land, are in contravention of the directions issued by the Ministry of Refugees and Rehabilitation in their order annexure 'A'. It is also his grievance that the order refusing the renewal of allotment had been passed without hearing him and there fore principle of natural justice have been violated. He therefore prays for a writ of certiorari to quash the above order dated 26th May 1956, and issue a writ of mandamus to restrain the Rehabilitation Commissioner from ejecting him from the said plot.
Against this petition, Mr. Jafri, the Additional Rehabili tation Commissioner, has filed a counter affidavit. In this affidavit, Mr. Jafri has denied the allegation of the petitioner that he was in possession of the plot when he had applied to the Ministry. He has also denied the allegation that the Ministry of Refugees and Rehabilitation had directed the Rehabilitation Authorities not to disturb the petitioner's possession. The true position, according to him, is that on the application of the petitioner which contained a statement that lie was in possession, the Ministry of Refugees and Rehabilitation sent a letter annexure 'A' requesting them not to disturb his possession, pending the consideration of his claim for compensation. This letter is dated 23rd August 1952. According to Mr. Jafri, it was clear from the record and also from the application made by the petitioner himself that one Abdul Rehman was in possession of the said plot which was allotted to him by the Mukhtiarkar of Karachi in the year 1949-50 and that he had deposited Rs.8-4-0 as licence-fee in the office of the Mukhtiarkar of Karachi, and that, although the allotment in favour of Abdul Rehman was not renewed in view of the general suspension of the allotments, he, all the same, continued to be in possession till May 1955, when the Assistant Rehabilitation Commis sioner eventually ordered that Abdul Rehman should hand over possession to the petitioner on the latter's paying compensation for standing crop. Mr. Jafri claims that the request contained in annexure 'A of the Ministry of Refugees and Rehabilitation even if held to be an order, is not binding on the Rehabilitation Commissioner, there being no provision for it in the Evacuee Laws. His case is that the allotment in favour of the petitioner was purely temporary and Provisional, and that the Rehabilitation Authorities had full right to cancel the same at any time. He also disputes the right of the petitioner to convert any portion of the plot into 'Sikni' without the approval of the Rehabilitation Department. According to Mr. Jafri, the petitioner had already obtained two allotment orders in the name of his minor sons, one of which was later on cancelled, but, on the other plot the petitioner has built a huge building, and this, according to Mr. Jafri, should have satisfied him. Mr. Jafri further says that the order of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 27th June 1955, is in no way in contra vention of the order of the Additional Rehabilitation Com missioner dated 20th March 1955. He further contends that even if it was not in conformity with the order dated 20th March 1955, the Rehabilitation Authorities had full powers to cancel the allotment at any time. According to Mr. Jafri, the allotment orders are nothing but licences granted to the allot tees to remain in possession as long as the licences are in force, and they would expire due to flux of time, if not cancelled earlier. Against this affidavit, there is an affidavit in rejoinder filed by the petitioner in which he has disputed the statements made in the counter affidavit, and reiterated that the order of May 1956 is bad and improper.
After hearing the learned counsel on either side and examining the various documents produced by the petitioner, I have reached the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for any writ.
The whole case of the petitioner, as is clear from the petition, and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on his behalf, is practically based on annexure 'A' which he describes as an order from the Ministry of Refugees and Rehabilitation, and it was argued that the Rehabilitation Authorities had no jurisdiction to cancel or in any way modify that order. Annexure 'A' reads as under:
I am directed to forward herewith a copy of an applica tion dated the 25th June 1952, submitted by Mr. Sultan Ahmad Japan walla for the allotment of a plot of land bearing survey No. 41-Survey Sheet Deh Dig measuring about 11 jirebs equal to 26620 sq. yds. in the Deh Dig Tapo, Malir Taluka, Karachi, belonging to Messrs. Manilal Mohanlal Boghilal Kesholal and Ratilal Tribhevandas, who have since migrated to India. The plot in question is already in possession of the applicant. Mr. Japanwalla has, it is understood, also registered a claim for 5 acres of agricul tural land abandoned by him in Delhi under the Refugee (Registration of Land Claims) (Capital of the Federation) Ordinance of 1949. 1 am, therefore, to request that pending the consideration of Mr. Japanwalla's claim, his possession of the land may not be disturbed so that he may get fair chance of allotment of the land in question on permanent basis under Rehabilitation Resettlement Scheme,"
It is clear from the perusal of this document that it is not at all an order. It is a letter written by the Assistant Secretary in the Ministry of Refugees, -forwarding a copy of the applica tion submitted by the petitioner for allotment of the plot in question, and it contains a request to the addressee namely the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, that pending the consideration of the petitioner's claim, his possession may not be disturbed. It is also clear that this request or recom mendation has been made on the assumption that what the petitioner had stated in that application viz. that he, was already in possession of the land, was true.
The next document relied upon by the petitioner is annexure 'B'. It is an order passed by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner. The relevant portion of the order is in paras. 4 and 5. It shows that the recommendation made by the Ministry of Refugees and Rehabilitation in the letter annexure 'A' was considered, and the lease of the land was provisionally allotted to the petitioner until settlement of his claim under Re-settlement Scheme. This order bears no date. It is clear from this order that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner was provisional. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the words "Until settlement of his claim under the Re-settlement Scheme" and argued that till the claim was settled, the allotment was irrevocable. I do not agree with him. The word 'provisional' used in the order makes the position clear, but even if it be held that the order was not provisional, it does not mean that it was irrevocable, The authority namely the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner which passed the order, which incidentally was of 'administrative nature, had jurisdiction to revoke or modify it. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any provision in the Evacuee Laws E to show that the Rehabilitation authorities cannot change their order once it is passed. On the contrary there are several provisions in the Act, empowering the Rehabilitation authorities to modify and revoke their orders if and when necessary. The order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner annexure 'D' which was passed on- 27th June 1955, made it quite clear to the petitioner that the allotment had been renewed for a period of one year on a purely provisional and temporary basis. Para. 2 of this order makes the position still more clear when it says 'it may please be noted that the allotment can be terminated by the Rehabilitation authorities at any time without showing any reasons and you will be required to surrender vacant possession of the land without claiming any compensation, right, title, or interest in the land.' Although the petitioner says in the petition that he had made representation to the authorities against this order, he has produced neither a copy of the representation nor any order passed thereon. Therefore it can reasonably be assumed that he accepted the position. At any rate, the order not having been revised, held good for all practical purposes. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner who issued the order annexure 'D' allotting the land to the petitioner for one year only, was without jurisdiction as he had no power to pass an order on his own in contravention of that of his superior viz. the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner. The reply to this contention can be gathered from the very first para of the order annexure V which commences with the lines I am directed to inform you that the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner Karachi has been pleased to renew this allotment order No. 15759/ A.R.C. dated 28th December 1953, issued in your favour for a period of one year on a purely provisional and temporary basis'. Thus it is clear that annexure 'D' is in fact the order of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner conveyed to the Petitioner through the, Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has, during the course of argument, placed before us a typed paper said to be a certified copy of the order passed by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner on 20th March 1955, in support of his contention that the latter had put no limitation of a period of one year.
It is true that this order does not limit the period of allotment to one year, but it is also true that the allotment was provisional and temporary and that it could be terminated at any time. The words 'I hereby renew the allotment from the expiry of one year, till the settlement of allot tee s claim by the Claim Commissioner of the department, or until such time that the Rehabilitation Authority or its successor terminates it. A formal order of allotment, provisional and temporary, will be issued in these terms in favour of Mr. Sultan Ahmad Japanwalla are quite significant. In fact these -words clearly show that the allotment could be terminated even before the expiry of one year. Thus the order of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner is less stringent than that of the Additional Rehabilitation Commis sioner.
The order of 26th May 1956, against which this petition has been filed, merely informed the petitioner that the allotment would not be renewed after 27th June 1956, and he was told that he must therefore deliver possession of the land to the department. Thus the two main grounds on which this petition is based namely (1) that the Rehabilitation Authorities had no jurisdiction to modify what is described the order of the Ministry of Refugees and Rehabilitation, and (2) that the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue the order dated 27th June 1956, are absolutely without substance. It is therefore obvious that the order passed in May 1956, against which this petition has been filed, is neither without jurisdiction nor in excess of it. The Rehabilitation authorities by their order dated 27th June 1955, (annexure 'D'), had expressly reserved to themselves the right to terminate the allotment if and when it was found necessary without assigning any reason. This order has not been revised and therefore holds good: The authorities have acted under this order when they have refused to renew the allotment. Therefore no principles of natural justice have been violated. The petition therefore deserves to be dismissed with costs. I would pass orders accordingly.
MUHAMMAD BAKHSH, J.-(14th December 1956).-1 regret to differ.
Important facts relevant to the disposal of this petition for a writ of certiorari are as follows:
(1) The three Hindu owners of the agricultural land in question agreed to sell the same to the petitioner, and in pursuance of that agreement they took Rs.5,000 earnest money from the petitioner and handed over the possession of the land to him.
(2) The sale could not be completed and therefore a suit was filed in the Chief Court for the recovery of Rs.5,000 The suit was decreed with costs and interest.
(3) Then the Custodian created the petitioner's charge over this property for Rs. 5,000, cost and interest.
(4) The Petitioner applied to the Government, in the Ministry of Refugees and Rehabilitation, for allotment of the land in question as compensation for the agricultural property left behind by him in India.
(5) The Government asked the Rehabilitation Authority not to disturb the petitioner's possession of the land pending consideration of his claim under Ordinance XII of 1949. This order was passed on 23rd August 1952 and pertinent portion thereof reads as follow:
"The Plot in question is already in possession of the applicant. Mr. ]apanwalla has, it is understood, also registered a claim for 5 acres of agricultural land abandoned by him in Delhi under the Refugee (Registration of Land Claims) (Capital of Federation) Ordinance of 1949. 1 am, therefore, to request that pending the consideration of Mr. Japanwala's claim his possession of the land may not be disturbed so that he may get a fair chance of allotment of the land in question on permanent basis under the Rehabilitation Re-settlement Scheme."
(6) The Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner then allotted this land to the petitioner until the settlement of his claim. Pertinent portion of this order dated 28th December 1953, reads as follows:
"4. Under letter No. D. 1748/52 R. 11 dated 23rd August 1953, the Ministry of R. and R. has recommended that pending Mr. Sultan Ahmad's claim, his possession of the agricultural land may not be disturbed so that he may get a fair chance of allotment of this land on permanent basis under Resettlement Scheme.
5. As the Scheme is still under preparation the lease of the aforesaid land is provisionally allotted to Mr. Sultan Ahmad Japanwala until settlement of his claim under the Re-settlement Scheme which will be taken up and con sidered for purpose of adjustment".
(7) The allotment of this land &to the petitioner was again considered by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner in 1955 and he passed his order on 28th March 1955, by which he renewed the petitioner's allotment until his claim for compensation was finally settled. This is an important order and it must be reproduced here:
"An application for renewal of allotment of evacuee plot Survey No. 41 Deh Drigh Tappo Malir presented by Mr. Mohsin Siddiqi Advocate who appears for Mr. Sultan Ahmad Japanwalla allot tee. The reasons given are that the order of allotment mentions that the plot is pro visionally allotted to the applicant until settlement of his claim under the resettlement scheme and secondly that it would be equitable that the allotment is extended up to the date of the final settlement of the claim. I am satisfied that the prayer is reasonable and the absence of applica tion for the renewal of allotment was merely a technical omission and that too under the impression that the order sanctioning the allotment meant that the allotment was to subsist under the re-settlement scheme. As however the formal order of allotment was for a subsequent period of one year I hereby renew the allotment from the date of expiry of one year till the settlement of allottee claim by the Claim Commissioner or the Depart ment or until such time that the Rehabilitation Authority or its successor terminates it. A formal order of allotments provisional and temporary will be issued in these terms in favour of Mr. Sultan Ahmad Japanwala."
(8) In spite of this order of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner issued the following order on 27th June 1955
"I am directed to inform you that the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, Karachi has been pleased to renew this office allotment order No. 15759/A. R. C. dated 28th December 1953, issued in your favour, for a period of one year on a purely provisional and temporary basis. 2. It may please be noted that the allotment can be termi nated by the Rehabilitation Authorities at any time without assigning any reasons and you will be required to surrender vacant possession of the land without claiming any compensation, right, title or interest in the land".
It is clear that this order was not in terms of the order of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 28th March 1955.
(9) Then comes the important stage in the history of this case. In 1955 the petitioner applied for permission to convert one acre of this land into "Sikni". On 25th July 1955 the Custodian said that he had no objection to this. On 10th September 1955 the Chief Commissioner sanctioned the con version of one acre of this land into "Sikni" on payment of the difference of "Malkano" On 8th August 1956, the Collector of Karachi informed the Petitioner that the con version of this land into "Sikni" had been sanctioned after consulting the Rehabilitation Department.
(10) After this conversion was sanctioned, the petitioner spent Ks. 23,672-12-0 on the said land. He has submitted the details of this expenditure (Annexure "G"). Among other things, be spent Rs.5,000 on digging a well into this land thereby the utility of the land was ostensibly increased.
11. Suddenly on 26th May 1956, the petitioner received the following order from the Rehabilitation Commissioner:-
"Please refer to is office letter No. Reh./1001/ARC of 1955 dated 27th June 1955 by which your temporary allotment of the agricultural land referred to above was extended for one year on a purely provisional temporary basis.
The said allotment will therefore expire on 27th June 1955 and will not thereafter be renewed.
You are therefore directed to deliver back possession of the land in question to this department on 27th June 1956."
It is this order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner, which has been challenged by the Petitioner in this writ petition on various grounds, which I will discuss hereafter.
The respondent has filed a counter affidavit whereby he contests the claim of the petitioner to remain in possession of this land. He said the land was allotted to the Petitioner provisionally and temporarily for agricultural purposes and the petitioner had no right to convert any portion of it into "Sikni" without the approval of the Rehabilitation Depart ment. The position taken by the respondent is that these allotment orders are nothing but licences granted to the allottees to remain in possession as long as these licences are in force.
While the Advocate for the petitioner was arguing his case, it became abundantly clear that no notice had been issued to the petitioner before the Rehabilitation Commis sioner passed the impugned order. On that ground alone the petitioner was entitled to the relief sought by him, and then at that stage the learned Advocate for the respondent got up and made a statement that he was instructed to say that no order of ejectment had yet been issued, and before any such action was taken notice under section 8 (2) (b) of the Rehabilitation Ordinance would be given to the Petitioner. In my opinion this is a thin edge of the wedge and is a mere excuse to have the matter postponed. I am clear in my mind that the petitioner's case is not at all covered by section 8 (2) (b) of the Rehabilitation Ordinance. Under this provision of law the Rehabilitation Authority can summarily eject a person in possession of an evacuee property in the following four cases only, viz:-
(a) If the possession has not been authorised by the Rehabilitation Authority, in other words, if the person in possession is a trespasser;
(b) if the allottee fails to observe any of the conditions of allotment ;
(c) if the allottee has subsequently been found to be an unsuitable person to hold the property so allotted.
(d) if the property in question loses the character of an evacuee property.
The petitioner's case cannot by any stretch of imagination be brought under these provisions.
Apart from this, the order of the Rehabilitation Commis sioner says "You are therefore directed to deliver back possession of the land in question to this department on 27th June 1955". This is a clear order and direction which has been passed without notice to the petitioner. The next step after this order in the case of non-compliance will be to eject the petitioner summarily. On this ground alone the peti tioner is entitled to the relief sought by him because this order violates the principles of natural justice.
This order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner is further vitiated by the following facts and circumstances.
(a) The Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner directed on 28th March 1955 that the land be allotted to the petitioner until the final settlement of his claim and not for one year only. The order issued by the. Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner on 27th June 1955 allotting the land to the petitioner for one year only was clearly in excess of the directions given to him by the Additional Rehabilita tion Commissioner. This order of the Assistant Rehabilita tion Commissioner being arbitrary and improper has no force and effect.
(b) The conditions for allotment of agricultural land have to be prescribed by the Central Government. The conditions imposed by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner on the petitioner have neither been prescribed nor approved of by the Government or the Custodian.
(c) The Government, in their letter of 23rd August 1952, directed that the petitioners possession should not be disturbed until the final settlement of the scheme. This direction of the Government has been violated by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner and the respondent.
(d) The respondent has also lost sight of the fact that the petitioner has a charge on this property for Rs.5,000 cost and interest, and that he was put in possession by the Hindu owners who had given him possession. This was an additional ground for the respondent not to disturb the possession of the petitioner in this manner.
(e) It was with the consent of the Rehabilitation Depart ment and the Custodian that the Petitioner was allowed by the Chief Commissioner to convert one acre of this land into "Sikni". This is what has been stated by the Collector of Karachi in his letter to the Petitioner on 8th August 1956. In spite of this it is most amazing to find an affidavit from the Respondent's side stating that the petitioner had no right to get any portion of the land converted into "Sikni" without the approval of the Rehabilitation Department. It appears this department does not remember things which it ought to remember, and that this department can go to any length in order to support their ill-considered orders. The conversion was done after full consultation with the Rehabilitation Department and therefore the respondent should have made some provision for compensating the petitioner who had spent a huge sum of rupees twenty-three thousand odd after conversion. The respondent by paying no attention this aspect of the case has violated the principles of natural E justice on the one hand and the principle underlying Article 15 of the Constitution on the other, When the Rehabilitation Authority raised no objection to the conversion of land into "Sikni", they must be presumed to have known that the petitioner would naturally spend big amounts over it. This has been completely lost sight of. In view of all these reasons, I would allow the petition and direct the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 26th May 1956. 1 would further issue a direction to the respon dent not to disturb the possession of the petitioner until the final settlement of his claim. The respondent to bear the costs of the petitioner.
MUHAMMAD BAKHSH AND MUNSHI, JJ.-Since there is difference of opinion, papers may be put up before the Senior judge for nominating third judge for disposal of this matter.
CONSTANTINE, J.-(16th April, 1957)-I am concerned in this difference of opinion matter principally with three orders ; the first was passed by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner on 28th March 1955, stating, "As however the formal order of allotment was for a subsequent period of one year, I hereby renew the allotment from the date of expiry of one year till the settlement of allottee claim by the Claim Commissioner or the Department or until such time that the Rehabilitation Authority or its successor terminates it. A formal order of allotment provisional and temporary will be issued in these terms in favour of Mr. Sultan Ahmad Japanwala."
The second order is that signed by the Assistant Rehabili tation Commissioner on 27th June 1955, this states :-
"I am directed to inform you that the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, Karachi, has been pleased to renew this office allotment order No. 15759/A. R. C., dated 28th December 1953, issued in your favour, for a period of one year on a purely provisional and temporary basis.
It may please be noted that the allotment can be termi nated by the Rehabilitation Authorities at any time without assigning any reasons and you will be required to surrender vacant possession of the land without claiming any compen sation, right, title or interest in the land."
The third order is that of the Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 26th May 1956 in which he refers to the second order, and states that the allotment will, therefore, expire on 27th June 1955 and will not thereafter be renewed, and directs the petitioner to deliver back possession of the land in question to his department on 27th June 1956.
My learned brethren differed upon this matter, but the Issues have been narrowed, in that Mr. Velliani, on behalf of the Rehabilitation Commissioner, has said that if I am of opinion that the Order applicable to this case is that of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, passed on 28th March 1955, then the Rehabilitation Commissioner will be prepared to give the petitioner a chance of showing cause against the cancellation or curtailment of the period of his allotment and Mr. Sharifuddin, on behalf of the petitioner, had stated that he would be satisfied by such a direction.
It appears to me that in this case the Additional Rehabili tation Commissioner had clearly said that the period of the allotment would be in the second alternative until such time that the Rehabilitation Authority, or its successor, terminates it, and it appears to me that the second 'order issued for the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner must have been issued under a mistaken notion of the extent of the first order.
I therefore direct that the Rehabilitation Commissioner do afford an opportunity to the petitioner of showing cause against the cancellation or curtailment of the period of his allotment. There will be no costs of this petition.
A. H.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer