Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No 119 of 1974, decided on 29th April, 1986.

(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 11‑6‑1973 of the Lahore High Court, in Writ Petition No. 1406‑8 of 1964.)

--------Art. 185(3) ‑ Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabili tation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss. 20(3) & 31‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether Settlement Commissioner was specially empowered by notification to bear revision.

‑‑Ss 20(3) & 31‑Notifications No. F. I(1)/63 SE‑1, dated 29‑6‑1963, F. I(1)/64, dated 31‑3‑1964 and No. 1226‑PI‑Reh‑60, dated 18‑I‑1960‑Additional Settlement Commissioner with the investing of powers of Settlement Commissioner, was specially empowered to hear and decide revision under S. 20(3) by reference to the notification.

Barkat AU v. M: S. Zaman P L D 1968 Lah. 770 ref.

‑‑‑ O. XXXIII, R. 3‑Condonation of delay subject to all just excep tions ‑ Respondent remained absent and thereby failed to object to the condonation of delay ‑No exception, held, could be taken to the condonation.

Mahfuzul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Quraishi, Advocate- on‑Record (absent) for Appellant.

Respondent No. 1 in person.,

Respondent No. 2 : Ex pane.

Date of hearing: 16th March, 1986.

Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the notification, dated 29th of June, 1963, satisfied the requirement of section 20(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, that is, whether the Settlement Commissioner was specially empowered to hear the revision.

The dispute in this appeal relates to the claim of Mst. Aisha Khanum, the appellant herein, that she was entitled to the transfer of the portion in the occupation of Ehsanullah Khan in a building bearing No. S‑52‑R‑56, Nisbet Road, Lahore. The Additional Settlement Commissioner by order, dated 15th of September, 1961, dismissed the appeal of Ehsanullah Khan and directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to consider whether Mohabbat Ali Iqbal, who had also filed an appeal, could be transferred a half portion of the‑building if the building was capable of verticle division and also to consider whether in view of the fact that he had already been transferred another building bearing No. S‑52‑R‑91, he had any entitlement for the transfer of the portion if vertically divided. The appellant filed a revision before the Settlement Commissioner, who by his order, dated 17th of June, 1964, held that Ehanullah Khan was an allottee and that the five portions in occupation of "five parties" are each to be treated as an independent unit; and, therefore, he modified the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner to the extent that the building should be transferred to the occupants in accordance with the portions in their respective possession. In so far as the claim of transfer of the portion of Ehsanullah Khan was concerned, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court, but did not succeed as it was dismissed by order, dated 11th of June, 1973.

The question as to whether the Settlement Commissioner who had decided the revision was not empowered to hear it as he was not specially empowered under section 20(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act; 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 31 of the Act, Was raised before the High Court and it was disposed of on the ground that in Writ Petition No. 306‑8 of 1965, this question had been dealt with and it was held by the High Court that he had jurisdiction to hear and decide the revision application.

The High Court while deciding the question dealt with the two Notifications Nos. F. I. (1)/63‑SEI, dated 29th of June, 1963, and F. I(1)/ 64‑SET, dated 31st of March, 1964, by which the Central Government had invested the Additional Settlement Commissioner, who was ex officio Additional Settlement Commissioner, with the powers of Settlement Commissioner for Lahore and Sargodha Divisions, respectively; and also Notification Nos. 1226‑PI‑Reh‑60, dated 18th of January, 1960, by which the Chief Settlement Commissioner empowered the Settlement Commissioner in West Pakistan and Karachi to exercise powers under section 20(3) of the Act. The High Court also took note of L. P. A. No. 11 of 1.971 decided by the Letters Patent Bench of the Lahore High Court in which the notification, dated 18th of January, 1960, was impugned and it was held that as the notification was issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in his capacity as such, it continued to remain in force till such time as the same was withdrawn specifically. Obviously, therefore, with the investing of the powers of the Settlement Commissioner, he also became specially empowered by the notification of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 20(3) of the Act to hear and decide the revision by reference to that notification.

The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the case reported as Barkat Ali v. M. S. Zaman (P L D 1968 Lah. 770), to support his submission that unless the Settlement Commissioner was specially empowered under section 20(3) of the Act, he had no jurisdiction to decide the revision. This case was cited before the High Court, but this contention was t'1'pelled on the ground that the question did not arise directly for consideration as what was decided was an appeal and not a revision. It may be noted here that the notification issued under section 31 of the Act by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 18th of January, 1960, was not noticed by the learned Single Judge who decided that case and it was only upon the authority of the notification, which entitled the Settlement Commissioner to exercise the powers of Settlement Commissioner, that the opinion was rendered. There was, therefore, no full consideration of the point. The High Court, accordingly, rightly held that Mr. Saeed‑ud‑Din Khan, who decided the revision as Settlement Commissioner, was specially empowered to hear and decide the revision under section 20(3) of the Act.

The petition was barred by five days, but as the delay was condoned IC subject to all just exceptions, and the respondent had remained absent and thereby failed to object to the condonation of delay, no be taken to it.

The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, but with no order as to costs.

M. B. A. Appeal 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.