Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 24 of 1979, decided on 16th December 1981.

‑‑ S. 42 read with Rehabilitation Act, 1956, S. 12‑Rehabilitation Commissioner hearing case transferred to post of Revenue Commissioner, taking file with him instead of handing over to his successor and announcing judgment ‑Order passed by Revenue Commissioner in circumstances, held, without jurisdiction‑‑[Jurisdic tion].

Abdul Ghafoor Qureshi for Petitioner.

Ch. Shah Wali and Ch. Muhammad Tajfor Respondents.

SARDAR MLTHAMMAD SHARIF KHAN, ACTG. C. J.‑The learned counsel for the parties were heard.

Originally the land in writ under survery numbers 1333, 1334, 1675, 1611 1614, 1094, 1673, 1674, 1680, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1520, 1521, 1612, 1559, 1561, 1519, 1522, 1047, 1036, 1524, 1525, 1526 and 1649 situate in village Herdo oochi (Akalghar) Tehsil Mirpur was allotted to one Allah Ditta son of Karam Din who died and thereafter (after his death) the allotments from his name were cancelled by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner and land so released from allotment was allotted to Piran Ditta petitioner and one Dil Muhammad vide order dated 19‑8‑1963.

This allotment in favour of the petitioner and Dil Muhammad was challenged by Shah Muhammad respondent claiming himself the son of the first allottee after whose death the land in writ was legally to be mutated in his name and other heirs of the deceased, if any, and as such was to be deemed as allotted to them, if he or any others were the legal heirs of tile deceased.

Shah Muhammad respondent being aggrieved with the order of allotment in favour of Piran Ditta and Dil Muhammad lodged a revision petition before the Rehabilitation Commissioner. His revision was disposed of by the Revenue Commissioner and not by the Rehabilitation Commissioner in whose Court it was filed vide order dated 17‑9‑1974.

It so happened that Rehabilitation Commissioner who heard the case of the parties was transferred to the post of Revenue Commissioner but instead of handing over the file to the Rehabilitation Commissioner succeeding him too the file along and disposed it of knowing it well that he had no jurisdiction t dispose it of. It was so done by him on the plea that as the arguments were heard by him as Rehabilitation Commissioner and the case was reserved for judgment and even the order was orally announced by him. After announcing the order even orally there was no fun for reserving the judgment. It was all done without jurisdiction after his position had come to an end a Rehabilitation Commissioner.

Obviously at the time the impugned order was made by the Revenue Commissioner. he was no longer holding the office of the Rehabilitation Commissioner as is evident from the impugned order itself. It was against this order passed without jurisdiction, that revision petition was lodged before the Custodian under section 12 of the Rehabilitation Act, 1956 read with that order of the Government by which the powers were delegated to the Custodian to hear a revision from an order of a Rehabilitation Commissioner. Evidently the Custodian had no authority to hear a revision against the order of Revenue Commissioner even though illegally passed by the latter and so the 'order dated 15‑8‑1978 passed by him is also without jurisdiction.

That being so, we are constrained to hold that the‑ impugned order: passed by the Revenue Commissioner and the Custodian are no orders in the eye of law, and as such the revision petition before the Rehabilitation Commis sioner filed by Shah Muhammad respondent shall be deemed still un-disposed of and as such pending on his file.

In the result by acceptance of this writ petition the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Commissioner and Custodian are hereby set aside as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Rehabilitation Commissioner is ordered to be restored on its original number. After doing so, the parties shall be given notice so as to appear before the Rehabilitation Commissioner so that after hearing them, the revision petition is disposed of by him according to law.

M. A. K. Petition accepted.