MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE), LAHORE

ORDER

This writ petition arises out of an order passed in remand by an officer by the name of Kh. Ghias‑ud‑Din, exercising the powers of Settlement Commissioner as a notified officer for Lahore Division, dated 5‑7‑1986. On a perusal of the file it was discovered by me that this very officer Kh. Ghias‑ud‑Din, P.C.S., with the powers of the D.S.C. (Land) Sheikhupura had decided the dispute inter‑parties in Case No.951/451 instituted on 4‑1‑1967 and decided on 8‑5‑1967 relating to village Sawanke, Tehsil and District' Sheikhupura. By virtue of this order he dismissed the appeal of Nathey Khan, Ismail, Ghulam Muhammad sons of Bundu Khan who are petitioners in this writ petition.

2. However, unfortunate on .the part of the learned counsel or the parties it may be not to have pointed out this fact to the notified officer that he stood disqualified to hear this matter on account of his previous bias by having dealt with the same matter in the capacity of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, he was wholly incompetent to decide this matter all over again in the capacity' of the Settlement Commissioner. There has been a flagrant breach of the rule of natural justice and the principle that justice should not only be done but' should appear to have been done. In such like cases it is not necessary to show that actual bias has worked its way. It is enough if in the mind of the affected parties. there could arise a reasonable apprehension of bias.

3. In reply what the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Kadri states is that it was the duty of the petitioners before him in remand to have pointed out about the disqualification, if any. Mr. Kadri has been good enough to point out that Mr. Ghias‑ud‑Din had been passing order sometimes in his clients' favour and at other occasions against them.

4. There can be no dispute regarding 'if any'. However, I am unable to see eye to eye with the learned counsel for the simple reason that the notified officer 'was not absolved of the duty to carefully examine the file and to trace out the history of the case which culminated in three remands from the High Court to the subordinate authorities. It was his bounden duty to have stayed his hands and not to assume the function of appellate or the revisional authority in respect of his own orders which is not sanctioned by law or any norm or procedure. I have, therefore, no hesitation in declaring the impugned order of Mr. Ghias‑ud‑Din notified officer (Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division) as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

5. In the meantime I am informed that the gentleman has retired as his extension is no more in existence. In any case, the case is remanded to the Member Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilita tion Wing) for entrusting this to another notified officer who shall disposed of this matter within a period of six weeks. There .will be in the circumstances, no order as to costs.

S.Q./M‑643/L Case remanded.