Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.969/R of 1977, decided on 16th December, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss.10 & 11‑‑Confirmed allotment‑‑Cancellation of‑‑Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner‑‑‑ Assistant Commissioner, held, was not competent to hear appeal as Additional Settlement Commissioner against order passed by Additional Settlement Commissioner confirming allotment of land in dispute in favour of allottee/ petitioner.

A.R. Shaukat for Petitioner.

Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for the Settlement Department.

Nemo for others and Muhammad Zafar Ch. for Respondent No.2.

Dates of hearing: 11th and 160 December, 1985.

Through this constitutional petition, Jalal Din petitioner wants this Court to declare the order dated 30‑6‑1977 passed by the Assistant Commissioner/ Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Depalpur, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The dispute relates to agricultural land measuring 36 Kanals and 6 Marlas situated in Mauza Mehtaki Mehtab, which was confirmed to Jalal Din petitioner on 12‑9‑1963 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) in lieu of 173 P.I. Units. On 6‑2‑1974. i.e. after more than ten years Mst. Sardar Begum respondent No. 2 filed appeal before the ‑Assistant Commissioner/ Additional Settlement Commissioner against the order, dated 12‑9‑1963. Alongwith the appeal, an application for the condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act was given. The learned Assistant Commissioner /Additional. Settlement Commissioner (Land) respondent No.1 accepted the appeal on 30‑6‑1977, hence, this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner‑submitted that respondent No.1 was not competent to hear appeal against the order dated 12‑9‑1963 of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The learned counsel for the Settlement Department has frankly conceded: The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has not been able to controvert the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that since the impugned order was passed by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, respondent No.1 could not hay heard the appeal as Additional Settlement Commissioner. That being the position, there is no option but to declare the impugned order to hay been passed without lawful authority.

5. For what has been said above, the petition is accepted and the appeal filed by respondent No.2 is sent back to the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Lahore for fresh, decision in accordance with law after giving parties opportunity of being heard.

H.B.T Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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