Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 748 of 1980, decided on 8th October, 1984.

(On appeal from the Judgment and Order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 5‑3‑1980 in W.P. No. 928‑R of 1979).

‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss.10 & 11‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2 (3)‑‑Notified Officer/ designated authority failing to exercise jurisdiction conferred on him by law‑‑Instead referring matter to Chief Settlement Commissioner for final adjudication pursuant to a directive issued by Chief Settlement Commissioner‑‑Order of Notified Officer and that of Chief Settlement Commissioner, held, without lawful authority‑‑Executive direction not to override pro‑Visions of Act Nor power of Notified Officer could be eroded, curtailed or stultified by any such directive‑‑Leave to appeal refused by Supreme Court.

Shahzad Jehangir, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Raja Abdul Razzaque, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 8th October, 1984.

‑The Chief Settlement Commissioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 5‑3‑1980 whereby a constitutional petition filed by the informer was allowed, the order of the Settlement Commissioner (Land), dated 21‑12‑1978 to the extent that it referred a question which was to be finally decided by him to the Member, Board of Revenue (Chief Settlement Commissioner) and the order of the Member, Board of Revenue passed thereon as declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The case was remanded to the Settlement Commissioner (Land) as notified officer to dispose it of finally.

On 16‑1‑1974 i.e. before the repeal of the evacuee laws, the respondents moved a Mukhbari application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement Act), 1958. This application was filed through an attorney. It ultimately succeeded and the excess entitlement equivalent to 1134 units was resumed. Instead of extending the consequential benefit to the informer after determining his eligibility the notified officer pursuant to a directive of the Chief Settlement Commissioner/ Member Board of Revenue, dated 7‑6‑1978 sent up the case for adjudication from that authority. The petitioner found the respondents disentitled as informer. The respondents challenged this act of the notified officer or designated authority on the ground that there was failure on his part to exercise a jurisdiction conferred on him by law and attacked the order passed by the petitioner on the ground that he had no jurisdiction and could not appropriate it in derogation of the provisions of the Evacuee Property Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975.

The learned Judge in the High Court upheld the contention of the respondents on the plain language of the statute and held that the notified officer had to dispose of finally the matter and could not abstain from exercising that legal duty and the petitioner being not the notified officer in terms of the repealed law was not authorised to deal with the pending proceedings in the manner in which he had done. On these findings, the order of the petitioner in its entirety was set aside and partially that of the notified officer to the extent that he had reserved the question of entitlement of the informer for decision by the petitioner.

The provisions of Evacuee Property Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 could not be overridden by an executive direction of the petitioner as was contained in the circular which issued in June: 1978. The power to deal finally with the matter as notified officer' could not be eroded, curtailed or stultified by any such direction. For' the same reason the petitioner could exercise no such authority as he did except on being as notified authority himself. There being no legal support for the acts done by the two authorities whose actions were under challenge the High Court has acted rightly in declaring those orders as without lawful authority. We find that there is no legal question to be further examined in this Court. Leave to appeal is', therefore, refused.

M.I. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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