Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Lave to Appeal No. 946 of 1975, heard on 18th February, 1981.

(On petition against the order dated 9-7-1975 passed by the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1063-R-1975).

-----Ss. 10, 11 & 21-Allotment, cancellation of-Revision---Order passed by Additional Settlement Commissioner exercising powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner---Held, could not be set aside by Settlement Commissioner.

-- Ss. 10 & 11--Allotment, cancellation of-Additional Settlement Commissioner not holding respondents guilty of any fraud or misre presentation in obtaining allotment but canceling allotment of excess land made in their favour due to some miscalculation--Additional Settlement Commissioner, held, acted rightly in canceling allotment of excess land and allowing respondents to purchase same in accordance with established Settlement Policy.

Abdullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 18th February, 1981.

The respondents were the allottees of land in dispute. On 18-12-1973 the petitioner laid information that the allotment had been obtained by fraud. An inquiry was held. Exercising powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 12-4-1974 cancelled the allotment of the respondents but allowed them to purchase the same.

2. Gulzar filed a revision petition. By his order dated 31-5-1974 the Settlement Commissioner set the order of the Additional Settlement Commis sioner aside. The other party, therefore, filed a writ petition which came up before the High Court and was accepted with costs by order dated 9-7-1975. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.

3. The first order had been passed by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner exercising powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and it was not open to the Settlement Commissioner to set it aside.

4 This also cannot be lost sight of that the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 12-4-1974 did not hold that the respondents had been guilty of any fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining the allotment. The excess land was allotted on account of miscalculation for which the respondents could not be saddled with any responsibility. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, therefore, acted rightly in canceling the allotment of the excess land from the names of the respondents and further allowing them to purchase the same in accordance with the established settlement policy.

5. The order of the Settlement Commissioner was not sustainable and we find no fault with the order of the High Court in accepting the petition and setting aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner which he was not right in passing either on merits or otherwise. This petition is, therefore, 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.