BASHIR HUSSAIN SHAH AND 4 Others vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION
This leave petition challenges the jurisdiction of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner to reduce, upon reverification, land allotments made to the predecessor of private respondents. The core legal question concerns whether the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner possessed the lawful authority to cancel or reduce surplus land allotments under the relevant statutory framework. The Supreme Court held that the power of cancellation or reduction of an allotment is vested exclusively in the Chief Settlement Commissioner under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, and subordinate schemes such as the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme cannot override these substantive statutory provisions. The Court laid down the principle that subordinate delegated legislation and administrative schemes cannot confer powers inconsistent with or broader than the substantive provisions of the parent statute.
- Does an Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner have the jurisdiction to cancel or reduce land allotments on reverification?
- Can a rehabilitation settlement scheme override the substantive provisions of the parent statute regarding the cancellation of land allotments?
- Who is exclusively empowered under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act to cancel or reduce excess land allotments?
- Section 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act
- Section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-In this leave petition the jurisdiction of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner to reduce on reverification the allotment of the land made to the predecessor of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, has been challenged.
2. Mohammad Khalil, predecessor-in-interest of the said respondents was allotted land in village Salim Kot, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal, on 4-4-1952 in lieu of his claim verified by the Central Record Room. Upon his death in November 1959, mutation of inheritance was entered in favour of his heirs in respect of the disputed land on 24-9-1960. The petitioners subsequently discovered that although the land abandoned by Mohammad Khalil in India was Barani, he had got it verified as Sailabi, and had thus secured allotment in excess of his actual entitlement. The petitioners, accordingly, made an application as informers, and the matter was sent to the Central Record Room for reverification. On the reverified Fard-e-Haquiat supplied by the Central Record Room it was found that the information was correct, and the respondents were holding in excess. The Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) summoned the respondents, and having heard their Attorney Akhtar Rahman, by the order dated 14-10-1961 directed that the 'surplus area be cancelled from the name of the respondents and the same be allotted to petitioner Baqar and one Rehmat A.I, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 3. This order was challenged on appeal by the heirs of Mohammad Khalil including respondents Nos. 2 and 3 separately, but the appeals were dismissed by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) on 24-6-196-5. Their revision petition was also unsuccessful before the Settlement Commissioner. They accordingly approached the High Court on a Constitution Petition and the petition was accepted. Hence the present petition by the petitioners.
3. On reference to Chief Settlement Commissioner's Notification No. 6894-69/491-R (P) dated 5-2- 1960 the High Court found that the powers on the Chief Settlement Commissioner under sec-- petition 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act were delegated to the Deputy Commissioners or the Additional Deputy Commissioners while acting as Deputy Settlement Commissioners. There was nothing to show that the Assistant Rehabilitation Com--missioner was ever delegated these powers.
4. It has been contended before us that under Para. 4 (c) of Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme the Rehabilitation Authority is competent to withdraw excess area at any time from a claimant who may be found to hold excess allotment. As such the impugned order of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) was legal.
5. The short answer to this contention is that under sections 10 and 11 of the said Act the power of cancellation or reduction of the allotment is given to the Chief Settlement Commissioner alone. The Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme having been framed under the Act cannot go against the substantive provisions of the Act.