ILAM DIN vs MIRZA MUBARIK ALI AND 2 Other
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that declared an order by a Settlement Commissioner illegal and without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether a successor Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to review and set aside a final revisional order passed by their predecessor regarding the cancellation of an auction. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the impugned order dated 22-7-1971 was passed without jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that the revisional order dated 24-7-1965 had attained finality and could not be reopened by a successor in office. Furthermore, the Court noted that Section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, had been repealed by Ordinance II of 1962, thereby stripping the Settlement Commissioner of the legal authority to interfere with the earlier final order. The principle laid down is that a statutory officer lacks the inherent power to review or set aside a predecessor's final order in the absence of explicit statutory authority, especially after the relevant revisional powers have been repealed.
- Does a successor Settlement Commissioner have the jurisdiction to review or set aside a final order passed by their predecessor?
- Can an order passed by a Settlement Commissioner be sustained if the statutory power of revision has been repealed?
- Does a party have locus standi to challenge an order if their application for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII remains pending?
- Section 21, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 28-1-1979 by which Writ Petition No. 704-R of 1971 filed by Mirza Mubarik Ali respondent was allowed and the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 22-7-1971 was declared as illegal and without lawful authority. By that order, learned Settlement Commissioner set aside the earlier order of his predecessor. In-office dated 24-7-1965, and the High Court interfered in' exercise of its constitutional juris--diction for the reason that may be stated in the words of the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the judgment to which exception is now being taken. This is what learned Single Judge held :--- "The essential facts of the case are that the auction in favour of the respondent No. 3 (petitioner herein) dated 24-5-1965 was cancelled by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner on 13- 7-1965. The order was upheld on revision by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 24-7-1965.
2. This order could not have been set aside by the successor Settlement Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 22-7-1971 because the latter had undoubtedly no power of revision on the relevant date and, therefore, his order is totally without jurisdiction. The contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner has no locus standi and his application could not be entertained by the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner are without substance. The petitioner's application for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII is still pending, the petitioner has a right to maintain this petition. The contention regarding misrepresentation in setting aside the auction in favour of the respondent No. 3 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 13-7-1965 does not arise in relation to the petitioner and the order was passed in the presence of the respondent No. 3 and was upheld on revision by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 24-7-1965. This order was not challenged by the respondent No. 3 any further. Therefore, it had become final against him.
3. The impugned order by the Settlement Commissioner dated 22-7-1971 is not an order which has irregularly been passed, but it is clearly without jurisdiction. It has sought to confirm the auction which had been cancelled some 6 years earlier, nor, could he do so as he had no jurisdiction to review the order passed by his predecessor on 24-7-1965."
4. Mr. Saeed-ud-Din, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since learned Settlement Commissioner held that the property could not be transferred to Mirza Mubarik Ali on the crucial date he was competent to recall the order of his predecessor-in-office. This aspect and the other points have already been noticed by the learned Single Judge and these have been rightly rejected by him for, the reason that section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was repealed by the ordinance II of 1962 on 13-1-1962, and the position in law is clear that the learned Settlement Commissioner was devoid of any legal authority to interfere with the revisional order dated 24-7-1965 which had become final.
5. The view that prevailed with the learned Single Judge in the High Court is unassailable in law and this petition is therefore dismissed in limine.