MUHAMMAD ALI vs PRESIDENT, BORDER BELT COMMITTEE (No. 2), BAHAWALNAGAR AND 5 Other
This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the High Court of West Pakistan dismissing in limine the appellant's writ petition against the Border Allotment Committee's order dated 5 January 1965. The core legal question concerned the implementation and divisibility of a consent order passed by the Rehabilitation Commissioner on 23 May 1958, which cancelled 20 acres from the appellant's total allotted land and directed compensation from another lot, and whether the Border Allotment Committee could partially implement the order while refusing the compensation part based on Martial Law Regulation No. 9-C. The Supreme Court held that the consent order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner was indivisible and could not be partially implemented while rejecting the compensatory portion; since one part was incapable of implementation, the entire order remained ineffective and did not affect the appellant's original allotment. The key principle established is that a composite consent order involving mutual concessions is indivisible, and if a substantive part cannot be implemented, the entire order fails, leaving the parties' original rights intact.
- Whether a consent order passed by a Rehabilitation Commissioner is indivisible when it involves a cancellation of land coupled with a compensatory allotment?
- Can the Border Allotment Committee partially implement a composite order while refusing the compensatory portion?
- What is the effect on an allotment when a reciprocal part of a rehabilitation order is incapable of implementation?
- Martial Law Regulation No. 9-C
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This appeal, by special leave, is from an order of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore Seat, dismissing in limine the appellant's writ petition, wherein the validity of the order dated the 5th of January 1965, of the Border Allotment Committee was challenged.
2. The appellant is a claimant. On the 4th of December 1957, an area of 1430 kanals and 12 marlas (=178 acres) of agricultural land situated in Mauza Ghulab A.I, Tehsil and District Bahawalnagar had been confirmed by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner in favour of the appellant to lieu of his units transferred from District Montgomery (now Sahiwal). Ultimately on a revision petition filed by one Muhammad Sharif, the Rehabilitation Commissioner by his order dated the 23rd of May 1958, cancelled 20 acres of land out of the aforesaid 178 acres of land allotted to the appellant, and gave it to Muhammad Sharif, and at the same time ordered that in lieu of this 20 acres the appellant should be compensated out of the land available in the lot known as Noor Samand etc. Up to the extent of 20 acres. It may be mentioned here that this order was passed with the agree-- ment of both the parties. Nevertheless, the appellant filed a writ petition from the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner, but it was dismissed by the High Court on the 22nd of January 1959.
3. On the 5th of January 1955, the Border Allotment Committee directed the implementation of the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner dated the 23rd of May 1958, and allotted the aforesaid 20 acres of land to respon--dents Nos. 2 to 5. As regards the other part of the order, namely, that the appellant should be compensated to the extent of 20 acres out of the land available in the lot known as Noor Samand etc., the Committee said that this could not be implemented because of Martial Law Regulation No. 9-C inasmuch as the appellant was not a sitting allottee of the particular area.
4. The appellant again approached the High Court on a writ petition, but it was dismissed in limine on the erroneous impression that the impugned order of the Border Allotment Committee dated the 5th of January 1965, only confirmed the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner dated the 23 a of May 1958, and the appellant could not, therefore, be allowed to agitate the same matter again.
5. It has been contended before us that the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner dated the 23rd of May 1958, having been passed by agreement of the parties was indivisible and it could only be implemented as a whole or rejected as a whole if any part of it was found incapable of implementa--petition. We accept this contention as correct.
6. The reason given by the Border Allotment Committee for not imple--menting the second part of the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner regarding compensating the appellant for the 20 acres of land is not valid. The appellant had transferred his claim to Mauza Ghulab A.I, Tehsil and District Bahawalnagar, previous to the 17th of March 1959, and it had been confirmed in his favour on the 4th of December 1957. The order dated the 23rd of May 1958, of the Rehabilitation Commissioner was indivisible and it was found that one part of it was incapable of implementation. That being so the order remained ineffective, and the appellant's allotment was not affected. He continued to be a claimant within the meaning of clause a of Martial Law Regulation No. 9-C of Martial Law Zone `B'. The said clause reads as follows :--- "Claimants who had either registered in or got their claims transferred to any particular estate lying in the border belt before 17th March 1959, provided they are temporary allottees of the landed property actually held by them, in that particular estate before this date, provided further that the limit of allotment to such claimants shall not exceed their temporary allotments."
7. We, accordingly, allow the appeal, but without any order as to costs. We should, however, like to observe that the appellant should be com--pensated for the 20 acres of lands cancelled from his name by giving him equivalent lands from any other lands available for transfer, provided, of course, that no person already in possession of any such land is affected.