SULEMAN vs NUR JAMAL AND 11 Other
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the confirmation of land allotments under the Settlement and Rehabilitation Scheme in a congested district where the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner fixed a ceiling limit of 114 units per allottee to accommodate refugees. The core legal question is whether an allottee possesses a vested legal right to claim land to the extent of their full entitlement in a particular area of choice, overriding a policy-based ceiling limit, and whether the High Court ought to interfere in writ jurisdiction with discretionary orders of rehabilitation authorities. The Supreme Court held that the fixing of the ceiling was within the discretionary jurisdiction of the rehabilitation authorities and that the petitioner had no vested legal right to enforce full entitlement in a specific area to the detriment of other claimants. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that rehabilitation authorities possess lawful discretionary power to fix ceiling limits for land allotments to accommodate refugees as a policy measure, and such administrative decisions cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction absent a vested legal right.
- Does an allottee possess a vested legal right to enforce a claim for land to the extent of their full entitlement in a particular area of their choice?
- Can rehabilitation authorities fix a ceiling limit for the confirmation of land allotments as a policy measure to accommodate refugees?
- Whether the High Court can interfere in writ jurisdiction with discretionary orders made by rehabilitation authorities regarding land ceiling limits?
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The land which is the subject-matter of this petition for special leave to appeal is situated in Chak No. 583/G. B., Tehsil Jaranwala, in Lyallpur, which is a congested district for the purposes of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Scheme. On the 22nd of April 1954, the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner purporting to act under para. 11 of the Scheme, fixed a ceiling limit for confirmation of allotment of lands in this Chak at 114 units equal to 6 acres for each allottee as a policy measure to accommodate the large number of refugees who were sitting allottees in this Chak.
2. The petitioner who was also a sitting allottee along with his sons, held a total entitlement of 1207 units. Before the ceiling was fixed in this Chak, 247 of the petitioner's units were transferred to village Pindi Isa and 566 units to another village named Herchokey on the 20th of May 1953. The balance of 394 units was left in the Chak in question, but the land equivalent to 114 units (6 acres) was confirmed in favour of the petitioner according to the ceiling fixed and the rest of the land was distributed to other sitting allottees. A surplus of 2 acres of un-allotted land was left over which has also been confirmed since in favour of the refugees.
3. More than 2 years thereafter, the petitioner appealed to the D. R. C., claiming that the land which was in his temporary allotment and possession as well as that of his sons, should be confirmed in his favour in adjustment of his outstanding units by cancelling the allotments that had been made in favour of the respondents. The D. R. C. Rejected this appeal on the ground that the allotments that had been made in favour of the respon--dents were old enough and should not be disturbed, particularly according to the permissible limit and that he was basing his further claim in the Chak not on the strength of his own temporary allotment but on that of his sons. The petitioner then went in revision to the Rehabilitation Commissioner in which he prayed that the limit of land fixed in the Chak be waived in his case. The prayer was turned down by the Rehabilitation Commissioner. The petitioner then brought the matter in writ jurisdiction in the High Court where his petition as well as his Letters Patent Appeal have failed.
4. The fixing of the ceiling was entirely a matter within the discretionary jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation Authorities and the High Court, in our view, has rightly refused to interfere with their orders made in this behalf. The petitioner did not posses any vested legal right to enforce his claim for grant of land to him to the extent of his full entitlement in a particular area of his choice to the detriment of the other claimants and allottees who had to be accommodated in this Chak. The ceiling was fixed for that purpose by the competent authorities within the lawful exercise of their powers which did not call for interference by the High Court in writ jurisdiction.
5. This petition stands dismissed.