THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB And Others vs MUHAMMAD
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab against the judgment of the High Court which had accepted the respondents' writ petition and declared a memorandum dated 30-11-1971 to be of no legal effect. The core legal question concerned the validity of the subsequent memorandum withdrawing an earlier reduction in property prices for building sites in Model Town, Faisalabad, and whether the original reduction memorandum dated 26-9-1967 was issued without the approval of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The Supreme Court held that the assertion regarding lack of approval could not be accepted, noting that the memorandum contained a specific recital incorporating an order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the department waited over four years before disowning it, and the relevant file was not produced. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, laying down the principle that an official memorandum containing a recital of proper authority and acted upon for a prolonged period cannot be easily disowned by the department without substantive proof to the contrary.
- Can a government department disown an official memorandum issued years earlier without producing the relevant file?
- Whether a memorandum containing a specific recital of an order by the Chief Settlement Commissioner can be challenged on the ground of lack of approval after a prolonged period?
ORDER
1. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--By a memorandum dated 30-11-1971 the office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner withdrew an earlier memorandum dated 26-9-1967 whereby the prices of different categories of Building Sites situate in Model Town, Faisalabad were reduced. The respondents who had obtained permanent transfer deeds were called upon to pay the higher prices They challenged the legality of the memorandum dated 30-11-1971 in writ jurisdiction in the High Court.
2. The High Court accepted their petition and declared the memorandum of 30-11-1971 to be of no legal effect. The Chief Settlement Commissioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the High Court.
2. The only point taken in support of this petition is that the momorandum of 26-9-1967 had been issued by the Settlement Commissioner (Policy) without the approval of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. It is difficult to accept this assertion for a number of reasons. There is a specific recital in the memorandum that it incorporated an order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner.
3. The Settlement Department waited for more than four years before disowning the memorandum.
4. The relevant file relating to the issuance of the memorandum has not been shown to us. In the circumstances we do not think this is a fit case for interference by this Court. Leave to appeal is refused.