P L D 1975 Lahore 1140 (PLP)

4. The matter with regard to extension of limitation was in relation to the proviso as contained in the provision of sub‑rule 2(A) rule 6 of the rules framed under the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956. The said proviso empowers the Claims Commissioner to call for the record of any case even after the period of 90 days if he deems fit. Under sub‑rule 2(A) as referred to above, a Claims Commissioner is empowered under subsection (3) of section 7 of Act to call for the record of any case within 90 days of the date of publication of the sub‑rule or the date on which ‑the case has been decided by an officer subordinate to him, which ever the date is later.

5. In the present case, the order of the Claims Commissioner which was impugned before the Supreme Court had been admittedly passed after 90 days and since while passing the order he had not applied his mind in deciding whether the limitation could be extended or not, therefore, the same was reversed and the case was remanded.

6. The case was taken up by the Claims Commissioner, Peshawar in compliance with the remand order of the Supreme Court. The provision .as contained in section 7 of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act. 1956, meanwhile had been amended on 28th of December 1964, whereby the .Claims Commissioner could at any time before 31st day of March 1965, after giving notice to the parties concerned revise in exercise of sun motu jurisdiction ‑or review any order, as the case may be. The Claims Commissioner, 'Peshawar held that in view of the amendment as stated above in the relevant provision of law, he was not competent to pass any order in respect of the ‑claim of the petitioner, and as the Supreme Court had set aside the order of his predecessor, therefore, the original order for verification of the claim of the .petitioner was to stand. He however, observed that he was competent to ‑pass necessary order under section 14 of the Registration of Claims Act. ‑Since most of the evidence to be produced in the inquiry to be conducted under the said provision was available at Karachi, therefore, he forwarded the case to the Claims Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore, for ordering an inquiry to be conducted by the Claims Commissioner, Karachi. The record shows that a note was put up on 11‑2‑1967 by the learned Settlement ‑Commissioner (Legal) to the Claims Commissioner, Pakistan to the effect that the Claims Commissioner, Karachi, may be directed to exercise his powers under section 7(3) read with section 14(2) of the Act. This suggestion ,was agreed to by the learned Claims Commissioner by his order dated 20‑2‑1967. In purusance of the order of the Claims Commissioner, Pakistan, the matter was taken up by the Claims Commissioner, Karachi who issued a show‑cause notice to the petitioner as to why sun motu revisional jurisdic tion may not be exercised in his case and an order under section 14(2) of the Act may not be passed. He was directed to appear before him on 27th of April 1967, in connection with the case.

7. The petitioner has now come up to the High Court and has .challenged the validity of the impugned orders as well as the issuance of notice to him by the Claims Commissioner, Karachi.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions;

(a) That after the amendment by Ordinance XIII of 1964, in the relevant provision of Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956, the Claims Commissioner has no longer the power to take up a case in review or revision. After the Claims Commissioner, Peshawar, has held that revisional jurisdiction was not available in the case, it was not competent for another Claims Commissioner to take up the matter even under section 14 of the Act. The amendment as introduced in 1964, in section 7 of the Act has not saved even the pending cases. (b) Section 14 of the Act does not contemplate any independent inquiry to be conducted by the Claims Commissioner except in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under section 7 of the Act which is no more available to him in the present case.

9. The contention that with the introduction of the amendment, as referred to above, even the pending cases have not been saved, ba3 no force. The relevant authority discussing this aspect of the case is Mirza Mahmood Sharif Beg and 4 others v. Claims Commissioner, Pakistan, Lahore and an other (P L D 1973 Lab. 114). The interpretation of section 7 (3‑A) as amended by Displaced Persons Laws Amendment Ordinance (XIII of 1964) was involved in that case. As discussed above. the said provision had authorised the Claims Commis sioner to review any order passed under subsection (3) of section 7 of the Act at any time before 31st of March 1965, after giving notice to the parties concerned. The point needing the determination was whether pending review petitions were to be disposed of in accordance with law or not, irrespective of the time limit fixed by the said amendment. It was held that the obvious intention of the time limit prescribed in the provision as referred to above was to ensure the early finalization of the work of the verification of the claims and not defeating pending review petitions by simple inaction to dispose them of before the prescribed date. It would, therefore, be in keeping with this intention and policy to interpret the subsection in such a manner as to permit the disposal of pending proceedings, even after the expiry of the limiting date in the absence of any clear provision to the contrary. It was further held that the provision as contained in sub section 3‑A of section 7 of the Act cannot be interpreted as meaning that the pending review petitions would automatically lapse after 31st of March 1965. All that the subsection means is that after this date the power of review would not be available to the Claims Commissioner so as to enable him to entertain new petitions in this behalf. The pending proceed ings would continue to be governed by law operating at that time under which they were instituted and could, therefore, be disposed of in accordance with that law even after 31st of March 1965. In this view of the matter if any review or revision petition was pending before 31st of March 1965 in relation to the property in question that was liable to be disposed of in accordance with law.

10. As the facts of the case narrated above would show the claim of the petitioner was initially verified by the Deputy Claims Commissioner, Peshawar. Thereafter the same was scrutinized by the Additional Claims Commissioner under delegated powers in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. The fact that Arbab Ahmad Ali Jan, Additional Claims Commissioner (Scrutiny) Peshawar, was specifically entrusted with the case in order to find out as to whether the same was bogus or not, has not been denied. A copy of his order dated 24‑12‑1959 has been placed on the file as Annex. `D'. In para. 8 of the order after discussing the evidence produced for and against the claim he has come to the conclusion that he was satisfied that the claim was neither bogus nor false and as such was liable to be confirmed as verified by the Deputy Claims Commissioner, Peshawar. This order was never challenged before any competent higher authority and as such it remains intact. The Claims Commissioner of Pakistan, however, having not felt satisfied with the said order again took up the matter and as mentioned above cancelled in toto the claim of the petitioner.

11. The question which arises is as to whether the Claims Commissioner Pakistan was competent to do so after the revisional jurisdiction had been exercised by the Additional Claims Commissioner specially empowered in this behalf. According to law, the order under revision merges in the order passed in revision petition. Once an order has been passed in revision a second exercise of revisional power would not be competent to determine a matter which has been determined by the previous order either expressly or by necessary implication. Reliance in this respect can be placed upon Sheikh Fazal Ahmad v. Raja Ziaullah Khan, Claims Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore (PLD1964SC293). By that judgment their Lord ships of the Supreme -Court disposed of too cases involving the same point. In the case of Sheikh Fazal Ahmad, appellant, a claim for Rs. 80,000.00 bad been submitted by him in regard to the property left in India. The Claims Officer, however, verified the claim for a sum of Rs 12,

150. The said amount was enhanced to Rs. 42,660 in appeal by the Deputy Claims Commissioner, Rawalpindi; The appellant then filed a revision petition under section 7(3) of the` Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 which was rejected by the Additional Claims Commissioner to whom the powers of Claims Commis sioner had been delegated. Thereafter the appellant received a notice from the Enforcement Directorate calling upon him to appear before the police" and substantiate the genuineness of his verified claim. After inquiry by the Enforcement Directorate, a report was submitted to the Claims Com missioner alleging that the claim was bogus and asking for its cancellation. I he matter was referred to Raja Ziaullah Khan, Claims Commissioner who had been authorised to bear the cases referred to by the Enforcement Directorate. He issued a notice to the appellant and after recording further evidence held the claim to be bogus and cancelled the same by his order dated 15th of August, 1961. The validity of this 'order was challenged in appeal by Sheikh Fazal Ahmad before the Supreme Court. In the second case of Mst. Barkat Bibi and others, appellants, a claim for Rs. 44,255 in respect of the property left in India, was preferred. This amount was however, increased to Rs. 77,500 on the application of the appellants. The claim was verified by the Claims Officer for a sum of Rs 55,

511. Thereafter the appellants again sought permission from the Claims Commissioner, Lahore, by means of an application to include some other property left by them which had not been included in the claim already submitted. This application was granted and review of the verified claim was allowed. The Deputy Claims Commissioner thereafter verified their claim for the total amount of Rs, 1,48,

380. This claim was later on scrutinized under sec tion 7(3) of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956, by the Additional Claims Commissioner, Lyallpur, who had been specially delegated the powers of the Claims Commissioner under the said provision. He in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction verified the claim for Rs. 1,53,

420. However, thereafter the appellants received another notice from the Claims ‑Commissioner that he proposed to revise the order passed by his predecessor, on the basis of the report made by the Directorate of Enforcement to the ‑effect that the claim was bogus. Consequently he cancelled the claim of the appellants under Schedule III and substantially reduced the claim under Schedule I. This order was challenged in writ petition before the High Court but the same was dismissed. The matter was ultimately taken up by the Supreme Court, in the appeal as referred to above.

12. As discussed above in the case of Sheikh Fazal Ahmad, his revision petition for the enhancement of verified value of the claim was rejected by the Settlement Commissioner while in the other case of Mst. Barkat Bibi, necessary scrutiny was made by a delegate of the Claims Commissioner who verified their claim on 6‑2‑1960 in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. It was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that so far as the order of the Additional Claims Commissioner in the case of Sh. Fazal Ahmad was‑concerned it amounted to an implied finding in revision that the claim as verified was correct and in the case of Mst. Barkat Bibi there was an express adjudication in revision as to the amount to which the claimants were entitled. It was held that in the circumstances the second exercise of revisional jurisdiction was incompetent. This view has been followed by a 'Single Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 77/R of 1968 after having relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, as referred to above. It has been held that the revisional powers having been exhausted no further revision against that order or against the order of the Deputy Claims Commissioner would be competent. It has further been held that even review would not be competent on the ground that the same is competent either against ones own order or order of any of the predecessor in office and the delegate of the Claims Commissioner cannot be deemed to be his predecessor in Office.

13. In the present case Arbab Ahmad Ali Jan, the Additional Claims Commissioner (Scrutiny) was delegated powers of the Claims Commissioner under section 7 (3) of the Act for the purpose of scrutinizing the claim. He after exercising his revisional jurisdiction came to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner was not bogus. According to law it was not competent for the Claims Commissioner of Pakistan to invoke the same provision to exercise revisional jurisdiction second time, even he could not review the said order having not been passed by him or by his predecessor in office. In this view of the matter his order dated 28th July 1960 cannot be maintained on this ground alone.

14. It is true that the said order has been set aside by the Supreme Court on another ground that the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard, therefore, the said order was not competent. The aspect of the case as discussed above has however, not been adverted to in the order of the Supreme Court. It appears that this plea was never raised. However, if this plea is otherwise available to the petitioner under the law as laid down by the Supreme Court then there is no reason why he should not be allowed to raise the same. It has been argued that when such plea can be raised by the petitioner before the Claims Commissioner who has asked him to appear before him by issuance of the said notices, then he should not to allowed to raise this plea here and the writ petition being incompetent on this ground alone should be dismissed. I see no force in this contention in the circumstances of the case. In view of the clear law laid down by the Supreme Court the proceedings before the Claims Commissioner exercising his revisional jurisdiction second time would be quite competent and for that reason it would be proper to interfere with the impugned orders, in order to end the agony of unnecessary litigation.

15. The notice of the Claims Commissioner, Karachi dated 7th of April 1967, has been apparently issued under section 14 (2) of the Act as well in addition to section 7 (3) of the Act. The question which arises for examination in this respect is whether the Claims Commissioner is competent to proceed under subsection (2) of section 14 of the Act without examining the verified Claim first under subsection (3) of section 7 as well as under sub section (1) of section 14 of the Act as to whether the claim is based on fraud or mis‑representation. If the Claims Commissioner comes to the conclusion after due examination that the verified claim is not genuine one then he can lodge the complaint in writing under section 16 of the Act for the prosecution of the person concerned who if found guilty may be punished with imprison ment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. After the said person has been found guilty, the Claims Commissioner, may proceed against him under subsection (2) of section 14 of the Act whereby any allotment or other benefit obtained as a result of any act which in punishable as an offence under this section, may be forfeited.

16. In order to appreciate this aspect of the case it would be better it the provision as contained in section 14 of the Act is reproduced:‑

"(1) Any person who a) submits, in respect of his claim under this Act, any information which he knows to be false, or does not believe to be true, or (b) fraudulently conceals or misrepresents facts for the purpose of making a claim which he knows to be false, either wholly or in part, or (c) submits a claim in respect of the same property to a concerning Registering or Additional Registering Officer, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and (2) The Claims Commissioner, or any other person authorized by the Central Government in this behalf may order the forfeiture of any allotment or other benefit obtained as a result of any act which is punishable as an offence under this section." The bare reading of the section, as reproduced above would show that the Claims Commissioner has not been given any power of revision or review nor any suo motu revisional jurisdiction has been conferred upon him in order to find out the genuineness or otherwise of the verified claim. The whole scheme of the Act shows that section 14 does not contemplate an action independent of the powers of verification of the claim and the appeal or revisional jurisdiction as provided by section 7 of the Act. The provision as contained in section 14 does not lay down any procedure but instead provides for a punishment. In case a person is found guilty of submitting any infor mation in respect of his claim or of fraudulently concealing or misrepresent ing facts for the purpose of making a claim, which he knows to be false, he can be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three: years or with fine or with both. The question is when the revisional juris diction has already been exhausted then how the Claims Commissioner can exercise the same jurisdiction second time under the law. As found above, it cannot be done by him. When he cannot scrutinise the claim at this stage in order to find out its genuineness or otherwise, he cannot lodge any complaint against the person concerned under section 16 of the Act. If the provisions as contained in subsections (7), (14) and ( 6) are read together then it becomes clear that the Claims Commissioner after having found the claim not genuine one can lodge a complaint in writing with the Court under section 16 of the Act so that proceedings may start against the person concerned. If the said person is found guilty then he can be punished with imprisonment for the term as mentioned above and in that case the Claims Commissioner can also order for the forfeiture of any allotment or other benefit obtained by that E person. It is clear that the Claims Commissioner himself cannot punish any such person who has submitted false information and fraudulently concealed certain facts. If he in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under section 7 (3) of the Act finds that such allegations are true against a particular person then he can lodge complaint in this regard and necessary action as contemplated under section 14 (2) of the Act can be taken by him only in case the said person is found guilty. In the absence thereof he is not com petent to proceed against any person under this provision. I have already taken this view in M. Abdul Aziz and 3 others v. The Settlement and Reha bilitation Commissioner, Lahore and another (P L D 1971 Lah. 871).

17. In view of the discussion made above, the notices issued by the Claims Commissioner, Karachi, under sections 7 (3) and 14 (2) of the Act being without jurisdiction and lawful authority, cannot be maintained and they are therefore, declared to be null and void. The proceedings taken by' the Claims authorities after the order of Arbab Ahmad Ali Jan, Additional- Claims Commissioner (Scrutiny) Peshawar, dated 24‑12‑1959 cannot also be maintained and all such proceedings and orders are hereby set aside.

18. The writ petition is accepted without any order as to costs. K. M. A. Petition accepted.