ABDUL HAMID vs AZIZ BAKHSH
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the finality of administrative orders under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether an order passed by an Additional Deputy Commissioner, acting as a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, which remained unchallenged, attained finality, thereby barring subsequent proceedings regarding the same land allotment. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the officer in question was duly empowered under the Act and the relevant notifications. Consequently, the Court held that because the initial order had not been challenged through the prescribed appellate or revisional hierarchy, it attained finality and could not be reopened or challenged through independent, subsequent proceedings. The key principle laid down is that once an order is passed by a competent authority exercising delegated powers under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and such order is not challenged within the statutory framework, it becomes final and is immune to collateral attack in subsequent proceedings.
- Does an order passed by a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 attain finality if not challenged in appeal or revision?
- Can an allotment of land be challenged in subsequent proceedings if a prior order regarding the same allotment has already attained finality?
- Are proceedings initiated after an unappealed order of a competent settlement authority legally competent?
- Section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
- Section 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
ORDER
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The respondent Aziz Bakhsh was allotted certain lands on the basis of the verified claim of his deceased son, but one Muhammad Din, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner, lodged a complaint against him alleging that he had been allotted lands in excess of his entitlement. This complaint was enquired into and rejected by an Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Lyallpur, who was also Deputy Settle--ment Commissioner exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner as his delegate under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. This order was not challenged before any higher authority, but subsequently the said Muhammad Din filed another complaint before the Addi-- tional Deputy Commissioner (Lands) which was accepted by an ex parte order on the 2nd of July 1965. He remanded the case for recalculation of the area said to have been allotted as a garden area. On remand, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, after visiting the spot, found that there was no garden at all and that no fraud or misrepresentation had been committed by the said respondent. From this order, Muhammad Din went up in appeal without any success, but a revision therefrom was accepted by the Settlement Commissioner, who directed that the excess area allotted to the respondent should be withdrawn after enquiry.
2. This was the order that the respondent challenged in the High Court and the main question urged on his behalf was that as no appeal or revision had been preferred against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) passed on 21-9-1962 in exercise of the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner no subsequent proceedings in respect of the same land were competent.
3. The learned Judge in the High Court, after examining the Civil List and the Gazette Notification, came to the conclusion that Capt. M. A. Majid who had passed the said order of the 21st of September 1962, was, in fact, an Additional Deputy Commissioner, Lyallpur, who had been along with all Additional Deputy Commissioners also appointed as Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands) and the powers under section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act had also been delegated to them by the Chief Settlement Commissioner by a Notification of the 5th of February 1960. Therefore, the contention was unassailable that his order not having been challenged had become final and could not thereafter be challenged by other independent proceedings.
4. The petitioner, who is the son of the said Muhammad Din, now seeks special leave to appeal on the ground that the Courts below were wrong in taking the view that Capt. M. A. Majid exercised the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner as a delegate. There is no substance at all in this contention. The High Court has fully dealt with it and cited the Civil List as well as the Gazettee Notification in support of this finding.
5. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the can--cellation was justified under section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. We are unable to accept this contention because if the order of Capt. M. A. Majid became final, the allotments in favour of the respondents could not be challenged in any other proceedings. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere.
6. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- SAADULLAH KHAN Versus ABDUR RAZZAQ KHAN 2000 CLC 2033