MOHAMMAD RAFIQ AND 2 Others vs MIR ADAM KHAN, CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI
This matter concerns a dispute over the allotment of two godowns, which the Settlement Commissioner determined were not appurtenant to the shops previously allotted to the petitioners, noting they were separated by a passage. The petitioners challenged the Settlement Commissioner's suo motu exercise of revisional jurisdiction, which resulted in an order to auction the godowns. The core legal questions were whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner possessed the authority to exercise suo motu revisional powers in this context and whether the failure to provide prior notice to the petitioners rendered the order illegal. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the Chief Settlement Commissioner was legally entitled to exercise suo motu revision. Furthermore, the Court held that the absence of prior notice did not invalidate the order because the petitioners were present during the proceedings and suffered no prejudice, having had a full opportunity to present their claims. The Court declined to interfere with the findings of fact made by the Settlement Commissioner.
- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have the authority to exercise suo motu revisional powers regarding property allotments?
- Can an order passed in the exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction be set aside solely for lack of prior notice if the affected party suffered no prejudice?
- Is the High Court empowered to interfere with findings of fact made by the Settlement Commissioner under Article 98 of the 1962-Constitution?
- Article 98, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The dispute is over two godowns, which were found by , the Settlement Commissioner exercising powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to be not appurtenant to and having no connection at all with the shops allotted to the petitioners. The godowns are separated from the shops by a passage.
2. The petitioners, to whom the said godowns were originally allotted, have contended that the Settlement Commissioner has illegally intervened in the matter in the exercise of his suo motu jurisdiction, and ordered that the godowns be put to auction.
3. The learned Judges of the High Court have rightly held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner was legally entitled to interfere in the exercise of his suo motu powers of revision, and that his findings are findings of fact based on relevant materials and that the High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 98 of the 1962-Constitution cannot interfere.
4. It has also been contended that as no previous notice was given to the petitioners as regards the exercise of the revisional powers suo motu, the impugned order of the Settlement Commis--sioner is illegal. We find no substance in this contention. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioners inasmuch as they were present before the Settlement Commissioner and bad full opportunity to press their claim.
5. The petition is accordingly dismissed.