TAJ MUHAMMAD SHAH Versus COMMISSIONER, NASIRABAD
The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld an order of the Commissioner, Nasirabad, setting aside the allotment of land made in favor of the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner under the Land Reforms (Baluchistan Pat Feeder Canal) Regulation, 1972. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Commissioner, Nasirabad division, possessed the jurisdiction to hear an appeal against an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner acting as a delegatee of the Board of Revenue, especially where counsel for the respondents conceded that the appeal before the Commissioner was incompetent. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention regarding the Commissioner's lack of jurisdiction and the High Court's failure to give effect to that finding requires detailed examination. The key principle recognized is that an appellate authority cannot exercise jurisdiction over an order passed by an officer acting under specific delegated powers unless duly authorized by law.
- Whether the Commissioner has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner acting as a delegatee of the Board of Revenue under the Land Reforms (Baluchistan Pat Feeder Canal) Regulation, 1972?
- Whether a constitutional petition can be dismissed on extraneous grounds after conceding that the impugned order of the lower authority was without jurisdiction?
- Paragraph 5-A, Land Reforms (Baluchistan Pat Feeder Canal) Regulation, 1972
- Paragraph 6-A, Land Reforms (Baluchistan Pat Feeder Canal) Regulation, 1972
ORDER
S.A.NUSRAT, J .‑‑The petitioner was granted land measuring 7.30 acres situate in Mauza Baro, Tehsil Jhatpat by the Deputy Commissioner/Land Reforms Officer, Nasirabad by order dated 12‑7‑1984 passed in exercise of the powers conferred upon him under paragraph 5‑A of the Land Reforms (Baluchistan Pat Feeder Canal) Regulation, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation). The Deputy Commissioner, Nasirabad, was delegated all the powers exercisable by the Board of Revenue under paragraph 5‑A of the Regulation by the Government of Baluchistan by virtue of a notification No. CLP‑129/81, dated 15‑7‑1982 issued in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by paragraph 6‑A of the Regulation. The order of allotment/sale of land in favour of the petitioner was set aside by the Commissioner, Nasirabad, by his order dated 19‑1‑1987 on appeal by the respondent No.2. The said order was challenged by the petitioner in the High Court through a constitutional petition, which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.
2. The main contention of the petitioner before the High Court was that the Commissioner, Nasirabad division, had no jurisdiction to hear any appeal from the order of the Deputy Commissioner which was passed by him as a delegatee of the Board of Revenue by virtue of the notification dated 15‑7‑1982 (referred to above). It was conceded before the learned High Court by the Advocate‑General as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent that the appeal of the second respondent before the Commissioner was not competent. Nonetheless, the constitutional petition was dismissed by the High Court on the other ground mentioned in the impugned judgment. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that having held that the order passed by the Commissioner was without jurisdiction, the learned High Court should have allowed the petition and not dismissed it on extraneous considerations, which were not relevant.
3. The above contention requires examination. Leave is accordingly granted. Security Rs.5,000.
M.I./T‑27/S Leave granted.