Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 301/R of 1958, decided on 30th May, 1960.

S. 11 (4) and Government of Pakistan Notification No. F‑2 (6)/56‑R/1 dated 15^th December 1956‑Notification confers power of revision not only on Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners who were in office on 15th February 1956 but also on persons appointed as such subsequently.

The language of the Government of Pakistan Notification No. F‑2 (6)/56‑R/1 dated 15th December 1956 is clear that all Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners in the Province of West Pakistan have been invested with the powers of Rehabili tation Commissioners for the purpose of section 11 (4) of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956, and there is no warrant in the language of the Notification itself, to restrict its meaning in a manner so as to confer these powers only on those Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners, who were in office on the date of the notification and not on those who were appointed as Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners after the date of the notification.

Zahur Ahmad for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 16th May, 1960.

The petitioner is a refugee settled in Chak No. 53‑R.B. in the district of Lyallpur. He desired the permanent allotment of Killas Nos. 6 to 10 of the square No. 77, but the same were confirmed in favour of respondent No. 2 Sultan Ali by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) at Jaranwala. The petitioner appealed to the Deputy Rehabilitation Commis sioner (Lands) and succeeded in getting the land de-confirmed from the name of the respondent. A consequential order was passed that he land be allotted to some other deserving person. There upon the respondent Sultan Ali went up in revision which was heard by respondent No. 1 Khan Faiz Muhammad Khan, Addi tional Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan Division, who by his order dated 24th January, 1958, held that the land was rightly confirmed in favour of Sultan Ali and D. R. C. (Lands) was not justified in accepting the appeal filed by Sher Muhammad.

2. The petitioner Sher Muhammad is aggrieved by this order of the learned Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner and the following grounds of attack have been put forward in the petition :‑----

(a) that the respondent Sultan Ali was a "najaiz qabiz" and, therefore, the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner has acted illegally in treating him as 'an allottee.

(b) that under section 11, subsection (4) of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956, it is, only the Rehabilitation Com missioner who can revise the order of an Additional, Deputy be Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner and, therefore, the order of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner in this case is without jurisdiction.

3. At the time of arguments Mr. Zahur Ahmad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, urged only one ground, namely, the lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner and did not touch upon the first ground regarding the correctness or otherwise of the view taken by the' Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner in treating respondent Sultan Ali on the same footing as an allottee. I shall, therefore, confine myself to the sole contention raised before me.

4. The argument of the learned counsel is that under subsection (4) of section 11 the power of revision is conferred on the Rehabilitation Commissioner alone and, therefore, an Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner has no jurisdiction to act in revision. Khan Faiz Muhammad Khan, the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, who decided the revision applica tion of the respondent Sultan Ali, was first appointed as such for the district of Lyallpur under West Pakistan Government Notification No. 1617‑U‑RR/57, dated 18th March, 1957. Subsequently, by another notification bearing No. 2060‑ U/RR‑57, dated 16th/17th April 1957, his territorial jurisdiction was extended to Montgomery district as well. The appointment was made by the Government of West Pakistan 'in pursuance of powers delegated to it by the Central Government under section 3 read with section 19 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956, by means of Notification No. F. 1 (1)/57‑R.I., dated 2nd March, 1957, published in the Gazette of 8th March, 1957. By another Notification bearing No. F. 2 (6)/56‑R/1, dated 15th December, 1956, the Central Government was "pleased to appoint, with effect from the 22nd of September, 1956, the Additional Re habilitation Commissioners in the Province of West Pakistan as Rehabilitation Commissioners for their respective areas, for' the purpose of disposal of applications under section 11 (4) of the said Act against the orders of the Assistant, Deputy and Addi tional Rehabilitation Commissioners, (other than themselves".)

5. It is the contention of Mr. Zahur Ahmad that this noti fication conferred the power of revision only on those Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners who were in office on the date of the notification and, therefore, it cannot confer any such power on Khan Faiz Muhammad Khan who was appointed Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner at a date subsequent to that of this notification.

6. There can be no doubt that the notification of the Central Government just referred to definitely conferred powers of revision on those Rehabilitation Commissioners who were in office on the date of the notification. Not only this. The notification has a retrospective effect from the 22nd of September, 1956. It is also clear to me that the notification was clearly intended to have prospective effect and as long as it remains in force, any person appointed as an Addi tional Rehabilitation Commissioner in West Pakistan will have the power of a Rehabilitation Commissioner for the purpose of section 11 (4) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1956. It is not contended that the notification has been cancelled or has otherwise ceased to be in force. The language of the notification is clear that all Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners in the Province of West Pakistan have been invested with the powers of Rehabilitation Commissioners for the purpose of hearing revisions etc., and there is no warrant in the language of the notification itself, to restrict its meaning in a manner so as to confer these powers only on those Additional Rehabilitation Commissioners, who were in office on the date of the notification. Mr. Zahur Ahmad has not cited any authority to support the view he has been advocating before me. I hold, therefore, that by virtue of the notification dated 15th December, 1956, all Rehabilitation Commissioners in West Pakistan have been invested with the powers of Rehabi litation Commissioner for the purpose of section 11 (4) of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956, and that these powers can be legitimately exercised by them as long as the notification in question remains in force. On this view of the matter, it is clear that Khan Faiz Muhammad Khan was competent to pass orders in revision in the present case. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.

K. B. A. Petition 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.