GULZAR AHMED vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER (LANDS), PUNJAB AND Other
The matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal concerning the cancellation of a land allotment. The core legal question involves the competence of the Settlement Commissioner to set aside an order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, and whether excess land allotment due to miscalculation warranted penalizing the allottees for fraud. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner lacked the authority to set aside the said order, and since the excess land resulted from miscalculation without any fraud or misrepresentation by the respondents, the Additional Settlement Commissioner acted rightly in cancelling the excess allotment while permitting its purchase under settlement policy. The key principle laid down is that an allottee cannot be saddled with responsibility for official miscalculation of land, and appellate/revisional hierarchies must respect statutory delegation of powers.
- Whether the Settlement Commissioner is competent to set aside an order passed by an Additional Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner?
- Can an allottee be held responsible for an excess land allotment caused by official miscalculation in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation?
- Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner?
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J. The respondents were the allottees of land in dispute. On 18-12-1973 the petitioner laid information that the allotment had been obtained by fraud. An inquiry was held.
Exercising powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 12-4-1974 cancelled the allotment of the respondents but allowed them to purchase the same.
2. Gulzar filed a revision petition. By his order dated 31-5-1974 the Settlement Commissioner set the order of the Additional Settlement Commis--sioner aside. The other party, therefore, filed a writ petition which came up before the High Court and was accepted with costs by order dated 9-7- 1975. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
3. The first order had been passed by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner exercising powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and it was not open to the Settlement Commissioner to set it aside.
4 This also cannot be lost sight of that the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 12-4-1974 did not hold that the respondents had been guilty of any fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining the allotment. The excess land was allotted on account of miscalculation for which the respondents could not be saddled with any responsibility. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, therefore, acted rightly in canceling the allotment of the excess land from the names of the respondents and further allowing them to purchase the same in accordance with the established settlement policy.
5. The order of the Settlement Commissioner was not sustainable and we find no fault with the order of the High Court in accepting the petition and setting aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner which he was not right in passing either on merits or otherwise. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.