Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑ S. 10‑Intra‑Court Appeal‑Settlement Commissioner acting on statement of appellants' attorney canceling their allotment in Power of attorney executed by appellants in his favour only relating to land allotted to them in S and did not include any authority in respect of their laud in H‑‑Attorney, held, could not make his state ment for cancellation of allotment of appellants' land in arid order passed by Settlement Commissioner without jurisdiction and of no legal effect‑Case remanded to Settlement Authorities for decision afresh.

‑‑ S. 3 and Provisional Constitution Order. (1 of 1981), Art. 9 Laches‑Impugned order of cancellation of appellants' allotment made on 31 st May, 1977 at their back on statement of an unauthoris ed person‑Appellants continuing to be in possession and challenging order through constitutional petition on 28th January, 1981 when they came to know of it‑Appellants, held, not liable to laches in circumstances.‑[Lashes].

Yousaf Farooq for Appellants.

Nemo for Respondent No. 1.

Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Respondent No. 7.

Date of hearing.: 5th October, 198.2..

LBHRASAP KHAN, J.‑This.lntra‑Court Appeal is directed against the order dated 10th February, 1981 passed by a learned Judge in Chamber whereby he dismissed the Constitutional petition filed by the appellants impugning the order dated 31st May, 1977 of the Settlement Commissioner/ C. S. C. by which he cancelled the allotment of agricultural land from the names of the petitioners in village Qila Ram Rang, Tehsil Hafizabad, District Gujranwala acting on the statement of the appellants' attorney namely Sh. Abdul Shakoor respondent No. 10.

2. The appellants were allotted agricultural land measuring about 160 Kanals in the aforementioned village 'in Hafizabad Tehsil of Gujranwala District in lieu of their verified claim. Some land was also allotted to them in Sialkot District. The appellants executed general power of attorney in favour of respondent No. 10 for the management and demarcation, etc., of the land allotted to them in Sialkot District. The power of attorney did not contain any authority in favour of respondent No. 10 regarding the appellants' land in village Qila Ram Rang, Tehsil Hafizabad.

3. Respondents Nos. 2 to 9 filed an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, before the Settle ment Commissioner (Lands) Lahore, exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner (Punjab) Lahore, viz. respondent. No.1 challenging the validity of allotment of the land in favour of the appellants in Hafizabad Tehsil. Respondent No. 10 allegedly colluded with respondents Nos. 2 to 9 and made a statement before respondent No. I to the effect that the allotment of land in the names of the appellants in village Qila Ram Rang be cancelled. The learned Settlement Commissioner (respon dent No. 1) acting on the statement of respondent No. 10 cancelled the allotment of the land in question from the names of the appellants on 31st May, 1977.

The appellants impugned the order dated 31st May, 1977 by way of a Constitutional petition before this Court mainly on the ground that respondent No. 10 had no authority in regard to appellants' land in village Qila Ram Rang, Tehsil Hafizabad and therefore, the learned Settlement Commissioner could not act on his statement while canceling the appellants' allotment. They alleged that respondent No. 10 being an unauthorized person. the appellants have been condemned unheard through the order dated 31st May, 1977.

5. The learned Judge in Chamber, however, vide his impugned order dated 10th February, 1981 observed that if the appellants' attorney was not authorised to make any statement in respect of the land in District Gujranwala the petitioners could take action against their attorney. He further observed that the allotment in favour of the appellants was cancelled on 31st May, 1977 but they challenged the same through' the Constitutional petition on 28th January, 1981 and therefore, the same suffered from laches. The writ petition was consequently dismissed and hence this appeal.

6. It is a matter of record that Abdul Shakoor respondent No. 1 was the attorney of the appellants with regard‑ to the land allotted to them in Sialkot District. The power of attorney executed by the appellants in his favour did not include any authority to him with regard to their land in Hafizabad Tehsil. He could not, therefore, make his statement for cancellation of allotment of land made in their favour in the said Tehsil. Ch Muhammad Abdullah learned counsel for the respondents urged that the appellants were not entitled to obtain allotment in Hafizabad Tehsil as they had already obtained allotment in Sialkot district. It transpires from the contents of copies of R. L. II produced by the learned counsel for the appellants that the total entitlement of the appellants was 213'0 P. I. U. and they obtained allotment in Sialkot District to the extent of 1011 P. 1. U. In this manner after obtaining allotment of land in Sialkot District they still had unsatisfied claim which had been satisfied in Hafiza bad Tehsil of Gujranwala District.

7. In regard to question of laches we would like to observe that the impugned order passed by the learned Settlement Commissioner canceling the petitioners' allotment in Hafizabad District was made at their back acting on the statement of an unauthorised person although they continued to be in possession of the land in question. They. (the appellants challenged the said order through the Constitutional petition when they came to know of it. They, in the circumstances, cannot be held liable for lashes.

8. In the light of the above observations we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Judge in Chamber and declare the order passed by respondent No. 1 on 31st May, 19.77 to be illegal, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. We, however, remand e the case to the learned Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement Com missioner for deciding the matter afresh after affording full opportunity to the parties of hearing and adducing evidence.

The matter shall be decided within three months under intimation to the Registrar of this Court. No order is made as to costs.

M.Y.H.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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