Find a Lawyer

Settlement Revision Petition No. 1 of 1961, decided on 7th June 1961.

Ss. 10 & 21‑Order passed under S. 10, raising question of law‑Revision to High Court lies under. S: 21‑Question of law: Whether Tribunal exercised jurisdiction properly.

If an order passed under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 raises a question of law such as is mentioned in section 21 of the Act then a revision would‑lie to the High. Court. Any question involving an interpretation of a statute, or exposition of a legal proposition, would be a question of law. Similarly a question whether a Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction properly or not would be a question of law, within the contemplation of section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958.

Where the allegations against one I were that he had obtained a bogus allotment by misrepresenting himself to be an heir of one T, but the Settlement Commissioner in his order under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 did not base his decision on those allegations and instead traversed a completely different ground, namely, whether the tenancy of the deceased T was heritable or not, and he answered that question in the negative, without affording I an opportunity of showing that the tenancy fell within the purview of paragraph 39 (4) of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme :‑-

Held, that I was materially prejudiced by the course adopted by the Settlement Commissioner and the jurisdiction exercised by the Commissioner was not a proper exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him and as such the High Court was justified in interfering by way of revision.

S. 10‑Powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner‑Delegated to Additional Settlement Commissioner (Touring and Inspection) vide Order dated 3‑2‑1960.

Ghazanfar Ali Gondal for Petitioner.

Muhammad Aslam Chaudhri for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 7th June 1961.

‑This revision petition under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) is directed against an order,‑ dated the 15th of December 1960, passed by Mr. Muhammad Zia Ullah Khan, Additional Settlement Commissioner, under section 10 of the same Act whereby he has cancelled allotment of land from the name of the petitioner, Inayat Khan.

2. The petitioner had obtainted allotment in question in lieu of the non‑occupancy tenancy of his uncle, Taungal in village Kapurgarh of Nabha State. The respondent, Sahib Din, gave information to the authorities, alleging that the petitioner, Inayat Khan, was in fact a resident of village Malot, Tahsil and District Ludhiana ; that the name of his grandfather was Makhan and not Dulla as given out by the petitioner : that the petitioner had a real brother, named Walayat Khan, who was still living in Malair Kotla State in India and that Taungal was not the real brother of the petitioner's father. It was stated that for these reasons the allotment obtained by the petitioner was bogus and should be cancelled, and the land allotted to Sahib Din instead.

3. The enquiry was entrusted to Tahsildar (Inspection) who recorded the statements of several witnesses. It appears from reports, dated the 11th of October 1960 and 18th of October 1960, on the departmental file, that there was evidence to the effect that Taungal was an uncle of the petitioner, that he died before Partition, that the petitioner's father also died in India and that his brother, named Walayat Khan, was still living in India. The Tahsildar, however, recommended cancellation of the allotment of the petitioner on the ground that Taungal being a tenant‑at will of the Nabba State was not entitled to any allotment under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme which conferred benefits only on the tab‑e‑marzi tenants of Nabha State.

4. This report was considered by Mr. Muhammad Zia Ullah Khan, who also heard the parties. He observed that the petitioner did hot appear to be making a correct statement as to the existence of his brother in India, but he, however, rested his decision in the case on the fact that the petitioner's uncle, Taungal, having died before Independence, his tenancy terminated, with the result that the petitioner had no entitlement for allotment of land in Pakistan. The learned Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner expressed himself thus :‑

"If Taungal had survived till after the partition he was him self entitled to get it here to the extent of 4/5th of the area abandoned by him, because he was himself cultivating the Maharaja's land on payment of malikana. If he had brought his entitlement with him to Pakistan, or had retained it in the State till he was forced to evacuate, the heir was entitled to succeed, but as the case stands the tenancy was concluded before the Partition. He was not, therefore, entitled to get anything for the same."

On this view of the matter he directed that the petitioner's allotment be cancelled and the area allotted to Sahib Din as Mukhbir to the extent of his unsettled verified claim.

5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that, in the first place, the order in question is vitiated by the fact that the enquiry was conducted by the Tahsildar (Inspection) to whom no powers had been delegated under the law ; secondly, that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to lead evidence before the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner and, thirdly, the ipecial jamabandi showed Taungal as a tenant‑at‑will of the Maharajas land and, therefore, Taungal's heir, Inayat Khan petitioner, was entitled to allotment in lieu thereof.

6. On behalf of the respondent, a preliminary objection has been raised that the present revision is not competent inasmuch as the impugned order has been passed by an Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner and not by an Additional Settlement Commissioner and, therefore, the law applicable is Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956, and not the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. According to the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Muhammad Zia Ullah Khan, has acted under section 7 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956, and not under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and for that reason section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, cannot be invoked for filing a revision in the High Court. It is also contended that in any event no question of law arises in the present case.

7. It is correct that Mr. Muhammad Zia Ullah Khan has signed himself as Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner at the bottom of the impugned order, but it is clear that the action taken by him is directly covered by section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, which is to the following effect :‑

"If the Chief Settlement Commissioner is satisfied that an allotment has been obtained by any person by means of fraud pr false representation then without prejudice to any other penalty to which such person may be liable, the Chief Settlement Commissioner may pass an order cancelling the allotment, or reducing the area of the land allotted or such other order as he may deem fit:

Provided that no order under this section shall be passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner without giving the person affected thereby a reasonable opportunity of being heard."

8. The application made by the respondent, Sahib Din, against the petitioner alleged that the allotment had been obtained by means of fraud or false representation inasmuch as the petitioner had given himself out as an heir of the deceased, Taungal. The application, therefore, fell directly within the purview of section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and it was not a case of cancelling the allotment of the petitioner for any of the reasons given in section 7 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956. It is not disputed that Mr. Muhammad Zia Ullah Khan was also working as Additional Settlement Commissioner (Touring and Inspection). By an order, dated the 3rd of February 1960, the Chief Settlement Commissioner had delegated his powers under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 to the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Touring and Inspection), West Pakistan. Mr. Muhammad Zia Ullah Khan was, therefore, authorised to act under section 10, and if the order passed by him raises a question of law such as is mentioned in section 21 of the Displaced Persons B (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, then obviously a revision would lie to this Court.

9. Section 21 of the said Act is to the following effect :‑

"(1) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner involving a question of law may, within sixty days of the order, file a petition for revision to the High Court.

(2) A petition filed under subsection (1) shall be heard by a Bench of not less than two Judges of the High Court, and in respect of such petition the provisions of section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 1908) shall, so far as may be, apply."

10. We do not intend to attempt an exhaustive definition of what is a question of law. It is, however, clear that any question involving an interpretation of a statute, or exposition of a legal proposition, would be a question of law. Similarly, a question whether a Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction properly or not would be a question of law, within the contemplation of section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. It seems to us that in the present case a question of law, in the latter sense, arises for our consideration.

11. The allegations against the petitioner were that he had obtained a bogus allotment by misrepresenting himself to be an heir of Taungal, but the learned Additional Settlement Com missioner did not base his decision on those allegations. Instead he traversed a completely different ground, namely, whether the tenancy of the deceased Taungal was heritable or not, and he answered that question in the negative, without affording the petitioner an opportunity of showing that the tenancy fell within the purview of paragraph 39 (4) of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. It is clear that the petitioner was materially prejudiced by the course adopted by the learned Additional Settlement D Commissioner. This, in our view, was not a proper exercise of the jurisdiction vested in him, and we would, therefore, be justified in interfering by way of revision.

12. We, accordingly, accept this petition and remand the case back to the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner for deciding whether the tenancy of Taungal fell within the purview of paragraph 39 (4) of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. If that be so, then the petitioner would clearly be entitled to retain the allotment in question provided he is an heir of Taungal. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner is directed to afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his case. In view of the legal questions involved, there will be no order as to costs.

R. B, A.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.