UMAR HAYAT KHAN And Others vs GUL KHAN And Other
This matter arises from a petition challenging the validity of a pre-emption exemption certificate issued by an Additional Commissioner rather than the Commissioner himself. The core legal question is whether a certificate issued by an Additional Commissioner regarding the exemption of property sale from the law of pre-emption can be legally deemed as a certificate issued by the Commissioner under the applicable statutory definitions. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the view taken by the High Court, based on the statutory definition, is correct and that the Additional Commissioner is included within the definition of Commissioner. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that an Additional Commissioner is empowered to issue a pre-emption exemption certificate as the statutory definition of Commissioner expressly includes an Additional Commissioner.
- Does the definition of Commissioner under the General Clauses Act 1956 include an Additional Commissioner?
- Can an Additional Commissioner validly issue a certificate exempting a property sale from the law of pre-emption?
- Section 2(17), General Clauses Act 1956
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The question as to whether the certificate issued by the "Additional"
2. Commissioner to the effect that the sale of the property in dispute exempt from the operation of the law of pre-emption, could be deemed to be certificate issued by the Commissioner.
2. It has been held by the High Court that the definition of Commissioner given in section 2(17) of the General Clauses Act, 1956 includes the Additional Commissioner and, therefore, the latter had the authority to issue the requisite certificate.
3. 3.A perusal of the definition of 'Commissioner' in subsection (17) of section 2, which is to the effect:- "(17) Commissioner shall mean the Chief Officer of the Revenue and General Administrator of a Division and shall include an Additional Commissioner such division." clearly shows that the view taken by the High Court that the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), who issued the requisite certificate in such case, would be deemed to be the Commissioner in the relevant regard, is quite correct.
4. This petition therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby.