ZULFIQAR ALI KHAN AND 10 Others vs MUHAMMAD MUBARAK KHAN AND Other
This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of a dispute regarding agricultural land in Okara, Sahiwal, where the petitioners were found to be in possession of an excess area by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner acting as a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1950, and the excess land was allotted to the respondent as an informer. The petitioners' subsequent appeal and revision before the settlement authorities were rejected on the ground that orders passed by a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner are not subject to appeal or revision, a view upheld by the High Court in a constitutional petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that appeals and revisions under Chapter VI of the Act apply only to orders passed in the exercise of ordinary functions under Section 9, and not to orders passed by authorities exercising delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether an appeal or revision lies against an order passed by a settlement authority acting as a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
- Do the appeal and revision provisions in Chapter VI of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1950 apply to orders passed under delegated powers?
- Section 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1950
- Section 30(2), Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1950
- Section 9, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1950
- Article 98, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-The dispute in- this case relates to a plot of agricultural land situated in Chak No. 52/2-L, tehsil Okara, district Sahiwal This land was originally allotted to the petitioners but subsequently they were served with a notice under section 11. Of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1950, to show cause as to why the excess area in their possession should not be cancelled. They showed cause but the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) on the 17th of September 1963, found that the petitioners were holding lands in excess of their entitle--ment and ordered that the units of the petitioners should be re-calculated and the excess- area - taken away from them and allotted to the respondent No. 1 as an informer.
2. Against this order the petitioner went up in appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner but the appeal was rejected on the ground that the order having been passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner as a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was not subject to further appeal. A revision against this order was also rejected on the same ground relying on a decision of this Court in the case of Jalal Din v. Mohd. Rafiq (PLD 1965 SC 261 The petitioners then invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution but the High Court has upheld the view taken by the Settlement Authorities and summarily dismissed the constitutional petition. The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition urges that the views taken by the High Court and, the Settlement Authorities as to the competency of the appeal and the revision were wrong, because, under subsection. (2) of section 30 of the Act it was expressly provided that the Chief Settlement Commis--sioner will have no power to delegate the: powers specified in Chapter VI of the Act which deals with appeals and revisions: It is on this basis argued that appeals and revisions were available even against orders exercised by Subordinate Authori--ties as delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner.
4. This argument is clearly fallacious, as pointed out by the High Court, for, the appeal and revision referred to in Chapter VI are from orders passed by the appropriate authorities concerned in exercise of their ordinary functions assigned to them under section 9 of the Land Settlement Act.
5. There is nothing in the Land Settlement Act to show that 'there can be an appeal or revision even from orders passed by the Settlement Authorities as delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. In: the circumstances, the principle enunciated by this Court in Jalal Din's case .Was fully applicable and had been rightly applied. By the High Court and the Settlement . Authorities.
6. There is, in our view, no substance in this petition' which is; accordingly, dismissed.