AZAM BAIG vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other
The petitioner, successor-in-interest of an informant, sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that declined to interfere with an order passed by the Member, Board of Revenue. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, as an informant, possessed a statutory right to be allotted land resumed from respondents due to excess entitlement, or whether the authorities could permit the original allottees to purchase said excess land. The Supreme Court held that the settlement authorities acted within their discretion in allowing the original allottees to purchase the resumed land, noting that the excess resulted from administrative errors by revenue staff rather than fraud or collusion by the allottees. The Court affirmed that where the nature of the irregularity stems from official miscalculation rather than claimant misconduct, the authorities have the discretion to determine the method of disposal of resumed property. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, finding no justification to interfere with the High Court's refusal to exercise constitutional jurisdiction.
- Does an informant have an absolute statutory right to be allotted land resumed from another party due to excess entitlement?
- Can settlement authorities permit original allottees to purchase land resumed from them due to administrative miscalculation?
- Is the High Court's refusal to interfere in constitutional jurisdiction against a discretionary order of the Board of Revenue sustainable when the order is based on administrative error rather than fraud?
- Section 3, Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-The petitioner, a successor-in-interest of an informant, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court; dated 28-3-1979 whereby the High Court refused to interfere in the constitutional jurisdiction with the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, dated 8- 1-1979 directing the sale of the land to the respondents-allottee --from whom it was resumed being found in excess of the entitlement.
2. More than once the information laid by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was inquired into and it was found that on account of the miscalculation of the units, on account of the classification of soil the claimants-respondents had received allotment of land far in excess of their entitlement. The Member Board of Revenue by an operative order which reads as follows allowed the allottees to purchase the land :- "The case remained under litigation in many Courts including High Court and Supreme Court and it was finally disposed of by Sh. Bashir Ahmad. Settlemant Commissioner (Lands) vide his order dated 23-7-1977, In the said order the learned Settlement Commissioner has maintained the previous order of cancellation of excess land and declined to declare the present respondents as informers on the basis of application moved by them, on 31-5-1969, He had recommended that the excess land being less than subsistence holding might be sold to the petitioners who are contesting this case for the last 12 years since the land in question already stood cancelled from the names of the petitioners since 4-8-1962, the subsequent "Mukhbary" application moved by the present respondents was not competent nor they are entitled to get this land in lieu of their pending claim. In these circumstances, I allow the petitioners/original allottees to purchase the excess land held by them at the rate of Rs. 100 per P.
1. Unit in accordance with the scheme prepared under section 3 of Act XIV of 1975."
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was a statutory right of the petitioner and his predecessor-in-interest as informer to be given the land which was found to be far in excess of the entitlement If the claimants. The petitioner could not be denied such a right particularly so when he succeeded in proving the irregularity and the fraud.
4. We find that more than once on resumption of land the offer was made to the allottees, though the price was different at different stages. The reason appearing from the record for this was that the functionaries of the revenue and settlement department played a major role in calculating the produce index and properly classifying the soil. In one of the orders punitive action against them was also suggested. It was the nature of the irregularity, the extent of taint from which the conduct of the allottee offered that prompted the settlement authorities to pass the order of sue a disposal of the resumed property. If the authorities were so convinced that it was not a case of fraud on the part of the claimants or of their collusion with the field staff, but a mistake committed by the field staff then the manner of disposal would appear to be justified, proper and legal. Keeping in view this feature of the case we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal and the High Court rightly declined to interfere in the constitutional jurisdiction with such an order.
5. The leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
6. M. Z. M.