MUHAMMAD ISMAIL And Others vs Mst. RASHIDAN BEGUM And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition regarding land settlement proceedings. The core legal question was whether a Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to entertain a fresh application under Sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, after the statute had been repealed. The petitioners, claiming to be informants, sought to challenge an allotment previously restored to the respondents by initiating new proceedings under the repealed Act. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner, as a creature of statute, lacked general jurisdiction akin to a civil court to declare an allotment a nullity. The Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal, reasoning that the Settlement Commissioner's authority was limited to the specific powers conferred by the statute, which did not extend to entertaining fresh applications under a repealed law, particularly when the matter did not constitute a pending case. The principle laid down is that a statutory authority cannot exercise jurisdiction beyond the scope of the enabling statute, especially after its repeal.
- Can a Settlement Commissioner entertain a fresh application under a repealed statute?
- Does a Settlement Commissioner possess general jurisdiction to declare a land allotment a nullity?
- Is a Settlement Commissioner authorized to act outside the specific powers conferred by the enabling statute?
- Section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
- Section 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 20th September, 1980; whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of a land settlement case, was dismissed.
The land in dispute was allotted to the respondents' but this allotment remained the subject of litigation for more than a decade and it came before the High Court twice in its writ jurisdiction.
Ultimately the respondents' allotment in question was restored in 1979. The petitioners claiming to be informants tried to initiate another independent proceedings by making an application under section 10/11 of the Repealed Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act, 1958. The application was dismissed by a Settlement Commissioner on the ground that the law under which it was made, stood repealed. Petitioners challenged the refusal to the Settlement Commissioner to entertain the application in the High Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction and having failed there, they now seek leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel has admitted that when the concerned application was made by the petitioners the relevant law under which if could be made to the Settlement Commissioner had been repealed; but he has contended that the Settlement Commissioner could have entertained the application under the general law so as to treat the allotment in question as a nullity. He however was unable to answer the question that the Settlement Commissioner has no general jurisdiction like a civil Court to make such a declaration. Moreover, he functions as Settlement Commissioner only for specified field which includes the jurisdiction to deal with pending cases. He has not been conferred any jurisdiction by the law whereunder he was conferred the power of the Settlement Commissioner to entertain fresh application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons Land Settlement Act, 1958, which stands repealed. And no argument has been addressed before us nor a plea was taken before the High Court that the application was made by the petitioners in a pending case. That being so, the Constitutional petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court. This petition for leave to appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.