1971 PLP 380 (SCMR)

HAMODDUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore Seat, in a Letters Patent Appeal, by which the order of a learned Single Judge dismissing a constitutional petition in limine was set aside, the petition was allowed, certain orders of the Settlement Authorities were set aside and the case was remanded to the Additional Settlement Commissioner for the decision of the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sahiwal. The dispute related to certain lands which were originally allotted to the respondent Bagga and one Chiragh, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the other respondents. The present petitioners acting as informants complained to the Settlement Authorities that the respondent Bagga and Chiragh had fraudul ently obtained more lands than what they were entitled to. Proceedings were thereupon started under section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner acting as a delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the 18th of September 1964, found that they had acting in collusion with the Patwari obtained an allotment of 230 P. I. Units in excess of their entitlement. What had actually happened was that the Patwari had calculated 1 bigha as being equivalent to 1 acre, although in fact a bigha was equivalent to only 0.825 acre. The Deputy Settle ment Commissioner, accordingly, directed that the entitlements of Bagga and Chiragh should be re‑calculated. Bagga and Chiragh waited for 5 years and then ultimately, on the 8th of January 1969, filed an appeal against the order by which the excess area taken away from them was allotted to the informers. The informers opposed the appeal on the ground that it was not maintainable, as the decision of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was in his capacity of a delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. In any event, it was contended, the appeal was barred by time. The Additional Settlement Com missioner dismissed the appeal on the first ground without deciding the question of limitation. Two revisions were filed against this order. The Chief Settlement Commissioner accepted the revisions and remanded the cases to the Chairman, Allotment Committee (Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lands) with a direction that the entitlement of the respondents should be re‑calculated according to the prevailing instructions. The Chief Settlement Commissioner was of the view that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner acting as the delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner had not made any final decision, for, he bad actually sent the case down for re‑verification of the area and thereafter the Settlement Authorities had all mis interpreted the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner as a final order of a delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. A learned Single Judge agreed with the view of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and dismissed the constitutional petition. The Letters Patent Bench, however, took the view that the appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner was itself defective, because, the heirs of Chiragh, who was a joint- allottee with the respondent Bagga, had never been formally brought on the record. In any event, according to the Letters Patent Bench, none of the Settlement Authorities had decided the question of limitation'. Therefore, on this ground alone the appeal that was filed before the Additional Settlement Commis sioner had, of necessity, to be reheard. We are unable to find any legal defect in the order of the Letters Patent Bench. No legitimate exception can be taken to what has been said in the impugned judgment, for, it is correct that none of the Settlement Authorities had applied their minds to the question of limitation. The question had, of necessity, to be decided. The mis-description of the heirs of Chiragh was also a substantial defect, for, due to this defect they were not served and the appeal had not been heard in their presence. They should have been formally made parties and served, These defects required to be removed and the High Court has rightly sent the case back for rehearing after removal of these defects. No valid exception can be taken to the course adopted by the High Court. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.