NIZAM DIN Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns the validity of an allotment of land under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. The core legal question was whether a formal order of transfer is required to move unsatisfied land units from one estate to another when both estates fall within the same Patwar Circle. The appellant argued, based on a prior administrative judgment, that no such formal transfer order was necessary. The High Court had rejected this, holding that the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme mandates specific procedures for such transfers, and that the administrative judgment relied upon by the appellant lacked the force of statutory instructions. The Supreme Court, relying on its recent precedent in Feroze Khan v. Ali Haider (1987 SCMR 197), affirmed the High Court's decision. It held that the instructions in the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme regarding the transfer of units are mandatory and cannot be overridden by administrative interpretations. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that an allotment obtained without the requisite formal transfer order is invalid and fraudulent.
- Is a formal order of transfer required to move unsatisfied land units from one estate to another within the same Patwar Circle under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme?
- Does an administrative judgment by a Rehabilitation Commissioner have the force of statutory instructions to override the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme?
- Can an allotment of land be considered fraudulently obtained if the required transfer of units between estates was not formally ordered?
- Section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
- Section 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
1. ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J. ‑‑Leave to appeal was granted in this case to determine the question of law, whether under the Rehabilitation Scheme an order of transfer of unsatisfied units from one estate to another, when both of them fall within the same Patwar Circle, is necessary.
2. The appellant, who claims through Mst. Assu, had challenged the cancellation of her allotment by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, vide. his order dated 22nd September, 1969, under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, on the ground that the units of Mst. Assu were never transferred from Jandiala Baghwala to village Chhichirali and hence the allotment in the latter village was obtained by fraudulent means. The appellant relied upon paras.7 and 11 of Part II of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, and also a judgment given by Mr.I.U. Khan, Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), to the effect that no formal orders are necessary for transfer of units from one village to the other if both villages are situated within the circle of the same Patwari. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court repelled the contentions raised by the appellants as hereunder:
2. "However, none of these paragraphs do away with the necessity of an order of transfer of unsatisfied units of allottees or non‑allottees, as the case may be, from one estate to any other. Surely it is not the Patwari of a estate who can be given the arbitrary power of taking the unsatisfied units to the other estate and to satisfy them there. There must be some sort of order of transfer as provided by paragraphs 12, 13 and 13‑A of the Scheme. In the absence of any order of transfer no exception can be taken to the impugned judgment and order, according to which it has been found that the allotment in village Chhichirali has been fraudulently go obtained without transfer of the units of Mst. Assu from village Jandiala Baghwala."
3. It was pointed out to us by the learned counsel for. the respondents that in a recent case, reported as Feroze Khan Ali Haider (1987 S C M R 197), Court has settled the question of law for determination in this case. It is indeed correct that in that case, the very same judgment of Mr. I.U. Khan was examined and it was pointed out that according to instructions contained in para.13 of Part II of the Scheme the procedure provided for transfer of units from one estate to another in the same Tehsil or District is to be complied with. As regards the judgment of Mr. I.U. Khan the legal effect of the same was expounded and it was held that the proposition laid down there did not have the force of statutory instructions, so as to override the requirements of para. 13 of Part 11 of the Scheme.
4. In view of our recent decision, which has come since the date leave was granted in this case, we feel it is not necessary to examine the legal question again. Following the dictum laid down therein, we find no ground to disagree with the view taken by the learned Judge of the High Court in the impugned judgment.
5. This appeal is accordingly dismissed but as the point of law was settled subsequent to the filing of the petition in this case, we make no order as to costs.
6. M.I./N‑102/S Appeal dismissed.