MUHAMMAD ISMAIL vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER. LAHORE AND 8
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order dismissing a writ petition filed by an informer challenging the allotment of land to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The petitioner had alleged that the respondents were allotted land in excess of their entitlement. Following various proceedings before Settlement authorities, the Additional Settlement Commissioner ultimately ruled that no fraud had occurred and that, as a permanent transfer had been effected under the relevant statute, the authorities lacked the competence to cancel the excess land. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's subsequent writ petition. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an informer possesses the locus standi to challenge the validity of orders passed by Settlement authorities regarding land allotments. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that an informer has no locus standi to challenge such orders. The key principle laid down is that third-party informers lack the legal standing to initiate or maintain proceedings against the validity of land settlement decisions made by the competent authorities.
- Does an informer have the locus standi to challenge the validity of an order passed by Settlement authorities?
- Can Settlement authorities cancel a permanent transfer of land after it has been effected under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958?
- Section 16, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-One Fazal Din predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 8 and 9, migrated from East Punjab and was allotted land equivalent to 490 units measuring 67 kanals 3 marlas in Chak No. 72/R. B., Tehsil Jaranwala, District Lyallpur, on temporary basis. On the 1st August 1960, the petitioner moved an application before the Enforcement Staff to the effect that Fazal lain has been allotted land in excess of his entitlement. No effective step was taken on this application.
2. The petitioner moved another application on the 30th January 1962, and the same was filed before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lyallpur. On the 15th June 1963, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner examined the entire matter. He came to the conclusion that the land held by the predecessor-in---interest of respondents Nos. 8 and 9, be cancelled. The matter was taken in appeal and the same was dismissed. A revision petition was filed and it was accepted on the 22nd November 1966, when the matter was remanded for being decided afresh. On remand. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, examined the entire question. He came to the conclusion that no fraud has been committed in taking the land in excess of the entitlement and that as permanent transfer had been effected under section 16 of the Land Settlement Act, the Settlement authorities were not competent to cancel the excess land. The petitioner challaned this order in Writ Petition No. 193/R of 1970, which was dismissed by the High Court on the 2nd March 1973. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
3. Mr. M. S. Baqir, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that merely because the petitioner was an informer, his petition could not be held to be incompetent. This contention has no force. As pointed out by the High Court, it was held in the cases of Abida Khatoon v. Ghulam Shabbir (PLD 1964 SC 793), Muhammad Ismail v. Jaferi Begum (1969 SCMR 34) and Allah Ditta v. Raja Saeed Akhtar (1972 Law Notes 118.), that an informer has no locus stand to challenge the validity of an order of the Settlement authorities. This being the position, the High Court was perfectly justified in non-suiting the petitioner. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- ALLAH RAKHA vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others 1991 CLC 1452
- TUFAIL MUHAMMAD and others vs SHER MUHAMMAD and others 1986 MLD 555
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND Others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER 1982 SCMR 822