Jamadar KHAN BAHADUR and others vs SAEED AHMAD and others
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside an order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The petitioners had filed a Mukhbari application under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, alleging that the deceased respondent, Siraj Din, had obtained an allotment of land in excess of his verified claim through fraud. The Additional Settlement Commissioner had partially cancelled the allotment. However, the High Court allowed the respondents' writ petition, holding that the Mukhbari application was incompetent because it was initiated against a deceased person, and that this fundamental defect could not be cured by impleading his son. Furthermore, the High Court found that the petitioners failed to establish any fraud or misrepresentation by the deceased, rendering the cancellation order arbitrary. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that proceedings initiated against a dead person are coram non judice and void ab initio. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, confirming the lack of authority of the Additional Settlement Commissioner to proceed in such circumstances.
- Are proceedings initiated against a deceased person considered coram non judice?
- Can an application filed against a deceased person be cured by impleading their legal representative?
- Does the lack of evidence of fraud or misrepresentation render an order of land cancellation arbitrary?
- Section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
- Section 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.--The petitioners seek special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 27th June, 1979, by which Writ Petition No, 1840/R of 1976 was allowed.
2. ' The petitioners filed a Mukhbari application before the Additional Settlement Commissioner under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, against deceased Siraj Din, through his son, respondent No,1 herein, alleging therein that he had only a verified claim of 85 P.I.
3. Units whereas he held an allotment of 87 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land in village Kassowal, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot; anti that the excess land be cancelled as it was obtained by practising fraud.
4. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, by order dated 30th of Septet fiber, 1976, cancelled 73 Kanals and 6 Marlas of land and left the remaining are equivalent to 85 P.I. Units intact. The legal representatives of Siraj Din, the respondents therein, challenged this order in the High Court through the aforementioned writ petition and succeeded as the High Court held that the application was incompetent as it was filed against a dead person and further that it would make no difference even if it purported to be through respondent No,1 as that would not cure the illegality.
5. Besides, none of the other respondents were heard in whom the land had vested upon the demise of the deceased. Further, the High Court held that in the application nothing had been shown to have been done by deceased Siraj Din in getting that allotment which could be regarded as fraud or misrepresentation. Lastly, the High Court held that 4he order was arbitrary and capricious.
6. ' In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel contended that patently the allotment was in excess of his entitlement and that it was rightly cancelled after hearing respondent No,1. But in raising this contention, the learned counsel was not oblivious of the defect that the proceedings against a dead person were coram non judice and, therefore, the Additional Settlement Commissioner had no authority to proceed further. The High Court, therefore, was correct in holding that the application was incompetent against deceased Siraj Din.
7. ' There is, therefore, no substance in this petition which is dismissed.