DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Another vs Syed ZULFIQAR ALI SHAH
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Chief Settlement Commissioner against the judgment of the High Court at Lahore. The core legal question concerns whether subsequent transferees of confirmed land allotments are entitled to notice and an opportunity of being heard prior to the cancellation of such allotments. The Supreme Court held that since the allottees were competent in law to transfer the lands upon confirmation without requiring prior consent from settlement authorities, the transferees acquired a valid interest and were entitled to notice on the fundamental principles of natural justice before any cancellation. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the validity of the underlying allotments must be determined by the settlement authorities in the presence of the affected transferees.
- Are subsequent transferees of confirmed land allotments entitled to notice before the cancellation of such allotments?
- Whether allottees of confirmed land are competent to transfer the lands without obtaining prior consent from settlement authorities?
- Does a transferee acquire a legal interest when purchasing land from an allottee whose allotment is subsequently challenged?
- Section 21, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
M. R. KHAN, J. The dispute in this case concerns certain-lands in village Khuddpur, Tehsil and District Lahore. These lands were allotted to Mst. Aisha Begum and some others. The allotments were duly confirmed. Thereafter, on the 6th of March, 1962, the allottees sold the lands to the respondents herein. Sometime thereafter, the allotments, in respect of these lands were cancelled.
The cancellation of the allotments was unsuccessfully challenged by the transferees, namely, the respondents. Thereupon, the respondents made a petition for revision in the High Court at Lahore under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. This revision petition was accepted on the ground that the allotments had been cancelled without giving the transferees an opportunity of being heard. The case was, however, remanded by the High Court to the Chief Settlement Commissioner with direction to deal with the matter after giving notices to the respondents. The petitioners, who are Deputy. Settlement Commissioner, and the Chief Settlement Commissioner, now seek special leave to appeal.
2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that although the trans--ferees were not given any notice before the cancellation of the allotment, the allottees themselves were heard in the matter.
It is also contended that the respondents as transferees were not entitled to be heard in the matter of cancellation of allotments. Undisputedly, the allotments in question were duly confirmed. The allottees were therefore competent in law to transfer the lands without having obtained the consent or approval of the Settlement Authorities. The transfer of the lands being permissible, the transferees were entitled, on the principle of natural justice, to notice before the cancellation of allotments.
3. The learned counsel contends that the allotments themselves being illegal, the transferees acquired no interest by their purchase and, as such, no notice was required to be served on them.
Whether the allotments were valid or not is a matter to be decided by the Settlement Authorities in the presence of the transferees. So, we do not find any substance in this contention either.
The petition is dismissed.