Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No.S-5 of 1984, decided on 17th November, 1986.

---S. 10--Settlement Scheme No.1, para. 38--Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2 (1) (2)- Issuance of notice for holding of inquiry regarding validity of allotment by Settlement Authority whether valid--After repeal of Evacuee Laws by Act XIV of 1975, Deputy Settlement Commissioner being not competent to entertain any matter and hold any inquiry in respect of property permanently transferred in favour of petitioner, issuance of notice by him to petitioner, held, was without .jurisdiction.

Mst. Nori Begum v. Mehmood Ahmad Khan and others 1982 CLC 2500 and Muhammad Younus and 2 others v. Muhammad Younus Khan and other 1981 S C M R 899 ref.

Kunwar Mukhtiar Ahmed for Petitioner.

Date of hearing. 17th November, 1986.

In 1959 the petitioner applied for transfer of a house at Thatta, bearing No.222/C, corresponding with C.S. No.416 to 424/13, which was ultimately transferred to him by the Settlement Department by permanent transfer Deed dated 8-8-1962 after its full price has been paid by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner gifted open land, bearing C.S. No.423 to his daughter, namely Mst. Farida Zaheer vide gift deed, dated 28-9-1980. The donee then mortgaged the property with the House Building Finance Corporation in 1981 for raising construction on the plot. However, in 1983, the petitioner received a notice dated 15-12-1983 from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner Thatta (respondent No.1) which showed that, some duplication had taken place in assignments of C.S. Numbers in respect of Plots Nos. C/219 and C/222. The notice further called. upon the petitioner to appear before the first respondent to explain the aforesaid discrepancy. It then transpired that such action had been 'taken by the first respondent on application filed: by the second respondent according to whom property bearing C.S. No. 423/B and corresponding No.C1219 had been transferred to his father Syed Mubarak Ali Shah in public auction. On receiving the notice, the petitioner appeared before the first respondent and later impugned the aforesaid notice, dated 24-11-1983 as having been issued without lawful authority.

I have heard only Mr. Kunwar Mukhtiar Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner as none appeared on 'behalf of the respondents. The position appears to have remained the same on 14-9-1986 and 26-10-1986 which respectively were the dates of hearing earlier fixed in the case.

The only contention raised by Mr. Kunwar Mukhtar Ahmed is that after repeal of the Evacuee Laws by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal Act) (Act XIV of 1975), the first respondent was not competent to issue notice dated 24-11-1983 to the petitioner. Reliance has been placed on Mst. Nori Begum v. Mehmood Ahmad Khan and others 1982 C L C 2500 and Muhammad Younus and 2 others v. Muhammad Younus Khan etc. 1981 S C M R 899. In both these cases it has been held that the Settlement Authorities after promulgation of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws Repeal Ordinance, 1974 have ceased to have jurisdiction in respect of properties transferred under the Settlement Laws after the target data i.e. 1-7-1974.

Act XIV of 1975 came into existence on 28-1-1975. At the same time, the above-said Ordinance was repeated by section 6 of the Act. Section 2 of Act XIV of 1975 is as under:-

The following Acts and Regulations are hereby repealed, namely:-

(i) The Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 (III of 1956);

(ii) The Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956 (XLII of 1956)

(iii) The Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 (XII of 1957);

(iv) The Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 (XXVIII of 1958);

(v) The Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 (XLVII of 1958);

(vi) The Scrutiny of Claims (Evacuee Property) Regulation, 1961, and

(vii) The Price of Evacuee Property and Public Dues (Recovery) Regulation, 1971,

(2) Upon the repeal of the aforesaid Acts and Regulations, all proceedings which immediately before such repeal, may be pending before the authorities appointed thereunder shall stand transferred for final disposal to such officers as may be notified by the Provincial Government in the official Gazette and all cases decided by the Supreme Court or a High Court after such repeal which would have been remained to any such authority in the absence of such repeal shall be remanded to the officers notified as aforesaid.

(3) Any proceedings transferred or remanded to an officer in pursuance of subsection (2) shall be disposed of by him in accordance with the provisions of the Act or Regulation hereby repealed to which the proceedings relate.

(4) The final orders passed under subsection (3) shall be executed by the Board, of Revenue of the Province in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the Regulation hereby repealed to which the proceedings related."

A perusal of this section shows that upon the repeal of the Acts and regulations mentioned in section 2 (1) of the Act, only those proceedings which immediately before such repeal were pending, stood transferred for final disposal to such officers as were to be notified by the Provincial Government in the official Gazette in this behalf. The other cases, which could be heard by them were such as might be decided by the Supreme Court or the High Court after such repeal which would have bean remanded to any of the authorities acting under the aforesaid laws as referred to in section 2 (1) of Act XIV of 1975. Since the aforesaid laws have been repealed, no officer acting under such laws possesses jurisdiction thereafter to entertain any matter except as provided in subsection (2) of section 2 of the aforesaid Act. Since the notice issued by the respondent No.1 does not fall within the purview of section 2 (2) of the aforesaid Act, the same clearly appears to have been issued without any authority of law. Under such circumstances the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, the first respondent in this case, had no jurisdiction to issue notice dated 24-11-1983 to the petitioner.

For the aforesaid reasons this petition is allowed with costs and the notice, dated 24-11-1983, is held to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and as such it is quashed.

H . B . T / A-21 / K Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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