ABDULLAH And Another vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND)
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the dismissal of a constitutional petition regarding the allotment of agricultural land. The dispute arose between two sets of claimants, both asserting rights as 'informers' regarding excess land allotment to a third party. The core legal question was whether the respondents, who had provided information to the Officer Incharge of the Central Record Room, were entitled to priority over the petitioners, who had subsequently filed an appeal before the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the respondents were entitled to priority as informers. The Court reasoned that the term 'Rehabilitation Department' in the relevant scheme should not be interpreted narrowly to include only settlement authorities competent to cancel allotments. Since the respondents provided accurate information first, and the petitioners merely intervened during active inquiries initiated by the respondents' information, the petitioners could not deprive the respondents of their statutory benefit. The principle laid down is that an informer's priority is established by the timely provision of accurate information to the relevant department, rather than the specific authority empowered to finalize the allotment.
- Does the term 'Rehabilitation Department' in the context of informer benefits under the Rehabilitation Scheme include authorities other than those strictly competent to cancel and re-allot land?
- Can a subsequent claimant, by filing an appeal, deprive an earlier informer of statutory benefits if the information provided by the informer was accurate and led to active inquiries?
- Is an informer required to approach the specific settlement authority competent to cancel an allotment to qualify for the benefits of an informer under the Displaced Persons (Land) Settlement Act 1958?
- Paragraph 71(A), West Pakistan Rehabilitation Scheme
- Section 14-A(1), Displaced Persons (Land) Settlement Act 1958
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The petitioners who claim to be informers, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the appeal bench of the Lahore High Court dated 11-4-1981 whereby the dismissal of their constitutional petition challenging the preference of respondents 2 to 4 was upheld.
2. Mahnda, respondent No.6, was allotted and confirmed agricultural land in Chak No.90/J. B. Tehsil Toba Tek Singh District Faisalabad in April, 1952. The petitioners also got allotment in 1953 in the same Chak. On 13th of July, 1957 respondents Nos.2 to 4 made an application to the Officer Incharge Central Record Room, Lahore, complaining that Mahnda had obtained excess verification of land abandoned by him and on the strength of such a verification he had got excess allotment.
They sought the cancellation of the excess area and its allotment to them as informers. On 14th October, 1958 while such proceedings for re-verification etc. Were pending on the complaint filed by them, the petitioners filed an appeal against the order of allotment passed in favour of Mahnda in 1952. A conditional order was passed on this appeal that if on re-verification the entitlement of Mahnda was found to be less than his allotment the area resumed should be made available to the petitioners for satisfaction of their claim. The respondents-informers also filed an appeal and then a revision followed by a constitutional petition on which the whole matter was remanded to the Settlement authorities for decision afresh. On the 26th May, 1967 the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner preferred the respondents as informers over the petitioners. This aggrieved the petitioners who filed a constitutional petition joining with them as writ-petitioner the original allottee Mahnda, now the respondent. Their claim was that they had approached the proper and the competent authority and should have been preferred over the respondents- informers notwithstanding the fact that the respondents supplied the information earlier. The learned Judge in the High Court after a thorough examination dismissed the claim of the petitioners. While doing so, the learned Judge formed the opinion that the petitioner "having learnt about the efforts of the respondents for cancellation and re allotment of the aforesaid excess area filed an appeal before the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) on the 14th of October, 1958, against the original order of allotment passed in 1952 in favour of Mahnda."
3. An Intra-Court Appeal was filed by the petitioners but that to was dismissed on the ground that as informers the respondents had a priority over the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on paragraph 71(A) of the Rehabilitation Scheme and section 14-A(1) of the Displaced Persons (Land) Settlement Act, 1958 and contended that an informer had not only to supply information but additionally the information had to be correct so as to entail resumption of the excess allotment and to result in re-allotment. This presupposed that the information must be laid before the competent authority, and the only competent authority to ensure verification, to adjudicate upon the claim and to make the allotment after cancellation was the settlement authority, which had been approached by the petitioners. The respondents- informers had approached the wrong authority and could not benefit from the correctness of the information supplied by them.
5. A reference to paragraph 71(A) of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Scheme bears it out that such informers were to be compensated as helped the Rehabilitation Department (Land) in unearthing cases of forged and bogus allotments. The expression 'Rehabilitation Department' cannot for the purpose of such beneficial provision be given a restrictive technical or narrow meaning as to confine it only to settlement authorities competent to cancel the allotment and to make the re- allotment. Besides the finding of fact recorded by the learned Judge in Chambers in the High Court clearly suggests that information was supplied by the respondents and the petitioners intervened while active inquiries were going on with respect to the information with a view to deny them the fruits of their efforts. The Courts were, therefore, justified in denying the petitioners the relief sought for by them. It is not being denied that the respondents had laid the information earlier in point of the, that the information supplied by them was certain and definite and that inquiry was being conducted actively into the matter. The petitioner cannot by filing an appeal after 5 years deprive the respondents of the statutory benefit available to them. The petitioner has no merit and leave to appeal is refused.