P L D 1964 (W (PLP)

SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.‑This is a writ petition under Article 2 (4) of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1958, for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the order dated the 31st of October 1960 .of respondent No. 2, the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan, Lahore, and to restore that of his predecessor dated the 24th of May 1960, (ii) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing to implement the order dated the 24th of May 1960 of Sayyed Hashim Raza and (iii) a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ directing that the order dated the 31st of October 1960 of respondent No. 2 (wrongly described as res pondent No. 1) should not be acted upon and implemented and that the petitioner should not be ejected or disturbed in any manner from the land which is the subject‑matter of this writ petition.

2. This case in the first instance was heard by our learned brother Jamil Husain Rizvi, J. in Single Bench, on whose request the case was laid before a Division Bench by our Lord the Chief Justice.

3. This writ petition relates to a dispute about 40 kanals, 5 marlas and 195 square feet of land which, according to the petitioner forms part of the Shori Studios on Multan Road, Lahore. Khawaja Ghulam Muhammad and Khawaja Abdur Rahim, Rajputs, and Mian Abdul Haq, Arain, residents of Fakki Thathi, Tehsil Lahore, applied to the Collector for per mission to sell 136 kanals, 6 marlas and 36 square feet of land, situate in the revenue estate of Pakki Thathi, to Messrs Shori Pictures for the construction of a film studio. The permission was granted by Mr. A. A. Williams, the then Collector of Lahore, by his order dated the 15th of March 1945, and consequently the above‑mentioned land was sold to Shori Pictures on the basis of registered sale‑deed dated the 28th of February 1946. After purchasing the land, Shori Pictures got a plan sanctioned by the Corporation of the City of Lahore for the construction of the studio over the land measuring 136 kanals 6 marlas and 36 square feet. After the plan was sanctioned, Messrs Shori Pictures are said to have constructed only a part of the building when the disturbances broke out in 1947 and they left Pakistan. The building already constructed by Messrs Shori Pictures was burnt. It appears that by an order dated the 2nd of April 1949, the Rehabilitation Authorities allotted the disputed land, measuring 40 kanals, 5 marlas and 195 square feet bearing Khasras Nos. 321/1, 322, 328, 329, 331, 331 and 350 to respondent No. 1, Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan. The original order is not forthcoming. Subsequently, by an order dated the 29th/30th July 1949 (Annexure `A') the Industrial Rehabilitation Board allotted the studio to the petitioner, Sayyed Shaukat Hussain Rizvi, without specifying the Khasra Numbers of the land. Immediately there after, the petitioner approached the authorities for the delivery of the possession of the remaining part of the land, viz., the land in dispute attached to the Shori Pictures, for the proper rehabilita tion of the studio. It was alleged that the entire land measuring 136 kanals, 6 marlas and 36 square feet was surrounded by a pre-partition boundary wall constructed by Messrs Shori Pictures. The record further shows that a part of the land in the compound of the Shori Pictures was allotted to one Niaz Muhammad (the subject‑matter of Writ Petition No. 184/R of 1961). The latter, however, applied to the Revenue Assistant, Lahore, saying that he was surrendering that land because it was banjar and unirrigated and requested for the allotment of better land. On the basis of a letter dated the 3rd of December 1957 (Annexure `C'), Sheikh Noor Muhammad, Additional Deputy Commissioner (R) and Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), Lahore, informed the petitioner that the land surrendered by Niaz Muhammad stood allotted to him (the petitioner) and had wrongly been given to Niaz Muhammad. There was some correspondence between the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, and the petitioner, resting with letter No. 236/51 dated the 13th of February 1951 of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner by his letter (Annexure `D') informed him that as he (the petitioner) required agricultural land for the construction of the studio, he (the Deputy Commissioner) was not competent to allot it for that purpose and moreover, the land was in possession of refugee allottees who held land in the urban areas of the prescribed territories. He directed the petitioner to apply for this land to the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (General), Lahore. After the receipt of the above mentioned letter, the petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of Raja Muhammad Afzal Khan, Additional Rehabilitation Com missioner, who dismissed it by his order dated the 2nd of October 1951 (Annexure `E' at pages 45‑47 of the file). The revision petition preferred against this order was also dismissed. A representation was made by the petitioner to Sh. Noor Muhammad, Additional Deputy Commissioner (R), Lahore, that the entire property belonging to Shori Studio had been allotted to him under the order of the Industrial Rehabilitation Board and the agricultural land allotted temporarily to Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan should be cancelled. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (R) on the 30th of January 1958 (copy Annexure C/1) observed as under:‑ "Since the agricultural land attached to Shori Studio is excepted from allotment to refugees for agricultural purposes, the temporary allotment made to Dr. Yar Muhammad and Niaz Muhammad should be cancelled and given effect to in the revenue record." This order was set aside by Ch. Abdul Hamid, Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore, by his order dated the 19th of May 1958 (copy Annexure `H'). The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the above‑mentioned order was dismissed by Malik Muhammad Yar Khan Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore, who, in his order dated the 271h of May 1959, observed that the land, in possession of Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan and the studio were absolutely separate units, although the owner was one firm. He further observed that the area of 79 kanals and 9 marlas included in the studio was sufficient for its requirements and that the Industrial Rehabilita tion Board was competent to allot the studio and not the attached land. He further observed that both the parties were claimants for allotment of urban land under the Scheme for the temporary allotment of urban land to claimants under Schedule IV to the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956. He held that Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan was in possession of the land since 1949 and had been cultivating it since nine years. The aggrieved petitioner preferred a revision in the Court of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Sayyed Hashim Raza, who, after bearing the parties, observed: "From the record and the lay‑out plan of the Lahore Municipal Corporation, I find that the entire area comprising the studio and the agricultural land purchased in the year 1946 was acquired by the Short Pictures for the purposes of building a well‑equipped studio. As a result of Independence only a part of the land was developed as a studio whereas the land under dispute continued to be agricultural land. This land was allotted to Dr. Yar Muhammad by a Settlement Officer, on a temporary basis, in lieu of his claim for urban agricultural land left by him in India. Since the land in question was the property of the Shori Pictures purchased for the development of the studio, I feel that its utilization for any other purpose will hamper further extension of the studio. As Dr. Yar Muhammad has already been allotted urban agricultural land in Lahore in satisfaction of his claim for urban agricultural land, I exclude the land under dispute from allotment as urban agricultural land and amalgamate it with the Shori Studio. The current market value of the land should be assessed by the Secretary (Urban). This amount should be received in a lump sum from Shaukat Hussain Rizvi either in cash or against his compensation before the land is transferred to him." In view of the above observation, the learned Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, by his order dated the 24th of May 1960, accepted the revision. Doctor Yar Muhammad Khan preferred a review petition, and Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din, successor of Sayyed Hashim Raza, who heard the review, accepted it by his order dated the 31st of October 1960 (Annexure `K'). In para. 6 of his order the learned Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din) distinguished the studio from the agricultural land and observed: "After perusal of the record and the lay‑out plan approved by the Municipal Corporation, I am satisfied that initially the entire area covering the Studio together with the agricultural land was acquired by the Shori Pictures for the purpose of building a studio. The land was purchased in the year 1946, but the present studio has been built only on a part of that extensive land. Since 1946, according to the revenue records, the land under dispute has throughout continued to retain its agricultural character. It was, therefore, allotted by the Settlement Officer to Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan temporarily in lieu of the urban agricultural land abandoned by him in India. After studying the relevant revenue records I find that the field numbers comprising the land allotted to Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan have been described as agricultural land belonging to the Shori Pictures, whereas the field numbers comprising the Studio have been described as the Short Studio. * * * * * * * * * * * Thus, although the land com prising the disputed field numbers was the property of the Shori Pictures, at the time of its allotment, it was distinct from the Shori Studio. The allotment of the studio, therefore, cannot be construed to have included the disputed land." In para. 7 of his order Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din observed that the order of Mr. Akhtar Husain, Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), dated the 24th of April 1952, and that of Mr. Khand, Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), dated the 27th of May 1959, deciding the case against Mr. Rizvi, had attained finality and could not under the law be reviewed and, therefore, a defect of jurisdiction crept in the order of Sayyed Hashim Raza which required reviewing. The writ petition is directed against the above‑mentioned order of Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the plea of lack of jurisdiction which had been advanced by Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din in his observation that Sayyed Hashim Raza could not cancel the allotment of agricultural land in favour of Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan, is not maintainable because in the opinion of learned counsel Sayyed Hashim Raza did possess the power to cancel the temporary allotment. In this connection he referred to section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, which is to the following effect :‑ "Power of Chief Settlement Commissioner to cancel or terminate allotment or to amend or vary terms of allotment.‑(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract, but subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made there-under, the Chief Settlement Commissioner may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, cancel or terminate any allotment or lease made under a Scheme or under this Act, or amend or vary the terms of any such allotment or lease: Provided that no order under this subsection shall be passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner without giving the person affected thereby a reasonable opportunity of being heard. (2) * * * * * * * * * (3) * * * * * * * * *. He urged that in view of this section, Sayyed Hashim Raza had jurisdiction to cancel the allotment and, therefore, the finding of Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din in para. No. 7 of his order that "these orders (the orders of Mr, Akhtar Husain and Mr. Khand) have attained finality and could not, under the law, be reviewed by my learned predecessor, (and) a defect of jurisdiction has thus crept into his order which calls for reviewing it" was itself wrong and without jurisdiction. He further objected to the observations of Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din in para. No. 8 of his order which run thus :‑ "My predecessor appears to have passed his order of 24th May 1960, not in the capacity of the Rehabilitation Commissioner, but in his capacity as the Chief Settlement Commissioner, acting under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Industries Branch acts under the said Act. Could the Chief Settlement Commissioner in the Industries Branch cancel the allotment made by the Rehabili tation Commissioner (Lands)? There is no scope for doing so under Act XXVIII of 1958. For this reason also the order of my learned predecessor is exposed to challenge." Commenting on the above‑mentioned observations, the learned counsel submitted that the allotment in favour of Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan was cancelled by Sayyed Hashim Raza, who was justified to cancel it and transfer it as a part of the industrial concern. In support of this contention he referred to para graph 15‑A of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Com pensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, which reads as under :‑ "Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 15, the Central Government may make any order for the disposal of any class of industrial concerns or cinema houses in such manner as may be specified therein." According to learned counsel, Sayyed Hashim Raza had given reasons for cancelling the allotment of Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan, observing that the land was acquired for the purpose of building a well‑equipped studio, and Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din in his order did not say that the land was not acquired for the purpose of a studio and, therefore, the plea of lack of jurisdiction in reviewing the order of his predecessor is incorrect.

5. He further urged that there were provisions under which an order could be reviewed by the Chief Settlement Com missioner. Section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958) lays down: "The Chief Settlement Commissioner or a Settlement Com missioner or an Additional Settlement Commissioner or a Deputy Settlement Commissioner may of his own motion within nine months, or on an application made in that behalf, within sixty days, review, and on so reviewing modify, reverse or confirm an order passed by himself or by any of his predecessors‑in‑office." Section 21 of Act XXVIII of 1958 at page 252 of the Settlement Manual is as under :‑ "The Chief Settlement Commissioner or a Settlement Com missioner or an Additional Settlement Commissioner or a Deputy Settlement Commissioner may either of his own motion at any time or on an application made in that behalf, within fifteen days review and while so reviewing modify, reverse, or confirm‑an‑order passed by himself or by any of his predecessors‑in‑office ;" Learned counsel contended that an order could be reviewed within nine months suo Motu, or, on an application, within sixty days and, therefore, the review application filed against the order of Sayyed Hashim Raza in the Court of Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din had become time‑barred. The record, however, shows that Sayyed Hashim Raza passed the order on the 24th of May 1960 and the application for the review of this order was made on the 24th of June 1960, i.e., within sixty days and so it was filed within time, section 20 not laying down that the review must be decided within sixty days.

6. It was urged that the scope of review should be in accordance with the general principles laid down by Order XLVII, C. P. C. and in support of this contention learned counsel relied upon Sahibrai v. The Custodian of Evacuee Property South Zone, West Pakistan Karachi (P L D 1957 S C (Pak.) 63) where it was held: "Although the Ordinance did not state in detail the circum stances in which a review of an order by the Custodian or Additional Custodian should be permissible, recourse could be had to the general law for ascertaining the principles governing the exercise of this power in the relevant respect. For the purposes of the present case, those principles were set out in Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Civil P. C." Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that there was no mistake apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din had acted without jurisdiction in accepting the review against the order of Sayyed Hashim Raza.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that none of the conditions of Order XLVII, C. P. C. existed in the present case and, therefore, Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din could not review the order of Sayyed Hashim Raza. He lastly relied upon sub‑section (3) of section 2 of Act XLVII, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, which lays down:- "`Land' means evacuee property consisting of land held for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture including gardens, un‑surveyed land and trees or buildings and other structures standing thereon and includes all rights of evacuees in such land, but does not include‑ (a) property as defined in sub‑clause (b) of clause (2) of section 2 of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 (III of 1956) ; or in sub‑clause (d) thereof ; or (b) such evacuee land as may be declared by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as a building site." Relying upon the definition of land as mentioned above, learned counsel argued that the land in dispute was not held by the Shori Pictures for agricultural purposes but was purchased for an industrial purpose. Mr. Williams, the then Collector Lahore, while sanctioning the sale, observed: "Khawaja Ghulam Muhammad and Khawaja Abdur Rahim, Rajputs, and Mian Abdul Haq, Arain, residents of Pakki Thathi, Tehsil Lahore, have applied for permission to sell 136 kanals, 6 marlas, and 36 feet of land situate in the revenue estate of Pakki Thathi, in favour of Messrs Shori Pictures, for the construction of a film studio. * * * * * accordingly allow the sale to be carried out on the terms mentioned above." Learned counsel also referred to the definition of land as given in subsection (1) of section 4 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, which lays down: "'Land' means land which is not occupied as the site of any building in a town or village and is occupied or has been let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture, or for pasture and includes the sites of buildings and other structures on such land." Learned counsel urged that the Shori Studio held the land for the purposes of studio and in these circumstances Sayyed Hashim Raza was right in coming to the conclusion that the land went with the studio. Learned counsel referred to the notes on the file captioned "Notes Part, Shah Noor Studio Lahore". The note dated the 6th of February 1950 on the front page without number is as under: "I think the land was allotted to Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan by the Rehabilitation Department. We should address D. R. C. requesting him to cancel the allotment made in favour of Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan as the land is required by the allottee of the Studio to expand his activities. Most probably this piece of land was allotted to Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan when studio was lying abandoned. Now that it has been allotted there appears to be no justification in allowing it to remain in the possession of a local man." He also referred to another note at a page without number which is asunder : "As desired I have ascertained the position from the Engineering Advisor, (sic.) who is dealing with this subject in the Director of Industries' Office. He tells me that the allot ment of land is now being done by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), who seems to have been influenced by Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan, the present allottee * * * " At page 5 of the file there is a letter by the Engineering Advisor, Department of Industries, addressed to the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore, which reads: "It has now been brought to my notice that certain land inside the boundary walls of the Studio has been allotted to Mr. Yar Muhammad and Niaz Ahmad for agricultural purposes. The allotment of these allottees may kindly be cancelled as the industrialisation of the Film Industry is being hampered by the allottees. The possession may be delivered to Sayyed Shaukat Husain Rizvi at your earliest. * * * *" A reference was made to a letter dated the 17th of February 1950 at page 7 of Rehabilitation File No. V‑O.S.D‑69, relating to the allotment of Shahnoor Film Studios, Multan Road, Lahore, suggesting that the allotment of land in favour of Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan be cancelled and the land be given to the petitioner. On the 24th of April 1951, the Director of Industries, Punjab, addressed a letter asking the Additional Deputy Com missioner (Revenue), Lahore, to give the possession of the disputed land to the petitioner. This letter is at page 19 of the Rehabilitation File No. V‑O.S.D‑69 Part II. At pages 30 to 32 of the file is a letter addressed by the petitioner to the Secretary, Board of Rehabilitation, Lahore, requesting for the allotment of the land to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying upon the above‑mentioned documents, urged that the observation made by Sayyed Hashim Raza: "From the record and the lay‑out plan of the Lahore Municipal Corporation, I find that the entire area comprising the studio and the agricultural land purchased in the year 1946 was acquired by the Shori Pictures for the purpose of building a well‑equipped studio." was sound and he passed this order after going through the file. This was an industrial concern throughout, as also found by the Industrial Board. He concluded that the order of allotment by the Industrial Board of the studio was a final order under section 13‑A of the Evacuee and Rehabilitation Laws, 1957, unless it was set aside by the Central Government and, therefore, Sayyed Hashim Raza was perfectly right in cancelling the allotment in favour of Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the Department and the respondent, we are of the opinion that the allotment in favour of Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan was not made under a Scheme as defined in the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. In 1947 there was no Scheme for the allotment of land to refugee claimants. The first Scheme was published on the 15th of June 1956, and is reproduced at page 383 of the Evacuee and Rehabilitation Laws, 1957. This Scheme, which is entitled the Rehabilitation Resettlement Scheme Punjab, was not in existence in 1949 when the allotment was made in favour of Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan. Clause (viii) to para. 1 at page 383 of the above‑mentioned Scheme, defines temporary allotment as under :‑ "`Temporary allotment' with its grammatical variations means allotment under the provisions of the Ordinance other than a grant under clause 2 infra." Clause 2 of Chapter 11 at page 384 reads as under :‑ "All persons, who, in the prescribed area, owned land or held occupancy or other rights of a similar nature in land as may be specified by the Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) from time to time, may be allotted land subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by him." The definition of "urban immovable property" as given in sub‑clause (ix) of Clause 1 at page 384 is: "(a) All immovable property situated within the limits of a Corporation, a Municipal Committee, a Notified Area Committee, a Town Area, a Small Town Committee, and a Cantonment as those limits existed on the 15th August 1947, and includes; * * * * * * * *. The temporary allotment was made in favour of Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan in 1.949 and the Scheme of 1950 came into force on the 15th of June 1950. The Scheme for the temporary allotment of urban land to claimants under Schedule IV to the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956, is the very first Scheme under which temporary allotment was made. Schedule IV deals with the urban areas. Para. 8 at page 5 of this Schedule is as under :‑ "So far as practicable the existing temporary allotment of urban land, made before the promulgation of this Scheme will not be disturbed and such allotment will he included in the area proposed to an applicant and reduced or enlarged as far as possible in one compact block, according to his entitlement. When, however, the reduction of an existing allotment is proposed the allottee will be consulted in regard to the particular area to be withdrawn and such land as he wishes to retain should be left in his possession to the extent of his entitlement provided that the land surrendered is in a compact block." Learned counsel for the Department contended that Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan had a verified claim under Schedule IV for urban area while the petitioner's verified claim did not relate to the urban area and, therefore, in view of the Scheme mentioned above, the temporary allotment of Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan, who was a verified claimant, was not to be disturbed. This Scheme was followed by Supplementary Scheme No. 2 and para. 6 of the said Scheme under Chapter II‑General at page 3 lays down:‑‑ "Unless specifically provided to the contrary in this Scheme, the provisions of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme shall apply mutatis mutandis to all allotments made under the provisions of this Scheme." The case of the respondent is that he is a displaced person, using and occupying urban laud on a temporary basis under a valid allotment order issued by the Rehabilitation Authorities. Sections 23 and 24 of the Scheme at page 8 lay down:‑‑ "

23. Subject to the provisions of this Scheme, land will be allotted to a claimant in an area corresponding in produce value to the land owned and abandoned by him. Such produce value will be determined in terms of the prescribed produce index units of the highest class of soil of the assessment circle to which the allotment is sought. The classification of the various types of soils in West Pakistan will not be taken into account * * * * * *.

24. The allotments of urban land, if any, held by claimants under the Temporary Urban Scheme, shall be adjusted subject to entitlement. If s; claimant is entitled to an allotment of land in excess of the area held by him under the Temporary Urban Scheme he shall, subject to the general limitation imposed under Clause 7 above be entitled to get the balance out of any other urban land, declared by Rehabilitation Commissioner as being available for the purpose or, if be so desires, any rural land available for allotment under the Scheme. Being a temporary allottee, Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan had the right to retain the land and adjust it against his claim as con templated by sections 15 and 16 of Act XLVII of 1958 and in view of section 16 of the above‑mentioned Act such a person A becomes a full owner. The respondent got a temporary allotment in 1949 which cannot be disturbed as he can retain the land which can be adjusted against his claim and lie can be perma nently settled on it.

9. Learned counsel for the Department and the respondent urged that the order of Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din was with jurisdiction if the property in dispute was land. He referred to the definition of land given in subsection (1) of section 4 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, already reproduced in this judgment. The Rehabili tation Resettlement Scheme, Punjab, at page 383 of the Evacuee and Rehabilitation Laws gives the same definition of land as is given in subsection (1) of section 4 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The definition of "land" given by section 2(3) of the Land Settlement Act is as under :‑ " `Land' means evacuee property consisting of land held for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agricul ture or for pasture * * *." Learned counsel for the Department urged that the word "held" means "occupied or let for agricultural purposes and held either by the owner or by the tenant". To prove that the land was agricultural or was used for a building site learned counsel for the Department urged that if the land in dispute has been shown in the revenue record as used for agricultural purposes, then it is land as defined in the Act. In our opinion, the nature of the property at the time of Partition will determine the scope of allotment, i.e., which authority was competent to allot it. Learned counsel referred to para. 23 of the Rehabilitation Resettlement Scheme, Punjab, which lays down: "The Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) may at any time pass such orders consistent with this Scheme and issue such instructions concerning details, etc., as may be found necessary with a view to securing the proper implementation of the Scheme." In Part II, Chapter I, at page 388 of the same book, there are instructions for Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) and other local Rehabilitation Authorities which say that the main function of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioners (Lands) will be to settle proprietors, occupancy tenants and other similar right- holders from the prescribed area of India on land of approximately the same value, subject to the prescribed minimum and Maximum and within the shortest possible time with the minimum of dislocation and to the greatest satisfaction of those who are to be settled. It also deals with the programme of work of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands). Learned counsel submitted that the Rehabilitation Resettlement Scheme is the Code for the allotment of land and whether a particular piece of land was land or not is a question of law. The Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) by his order, dated the 24th of April 1952 (copy Annexure 'F'), held that the land in dispute was agricultural land. In support of his contention that the whole Scheme is a Code for the allotment of land, learned counsel for the Department relied upon Mst. Zainab v. Mst. Raji and others (P L D 1960 S C 229) where it was held: "The Rehabilitation Resettlement Scheme read with the parent legislation, provides a complete Code for allotment of evacuee lands to refugees or other persons and contains elaborate provisions for dealing with the claims made by refugees in respect of lands abandoned in India. Section 4(2) of Act XLII of 1956 declares that every order purporting to be made, or signed by the Rehabilitation Authority, in lawful exercise of any power conferred by or under the Act, shall be presumed to have been so made by such an authority and no such order shall be called in question in any Court . . . . ." Referring again to the order of Mr. Akhtar Husain, Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands), dated the 24th of April 1952, learned counsel contended that according to this judgment the land was regarded as agricultural in 1947 and it was allotted to a claimant in 1949. In his opinion, even the order of Sayyed Hashim Raza, copy Annexure `J', also supported the respondent s contention that the land in dispute was agricultural. In 1946, on the basis of the sale deed mentioned in the beginning of this judgment, Mr. Williams, the then Collector of Lahore, had permitted the sale of agricultural land by the agriculturists to a non‑agriculturist which shows that even in 1946 the land was agricultural and since Shod Pictures failed to build on the land in dispute it continued to be agricultural.

10. The revenue record shows that the land on which the studio stands and the land allotted to respondent No. 1 have separate khasra numbers, and that the two sets of numbers were separated by a pre‑Partition road, The petitioner got possession of the studio and did not at that time claim that the agricultural land was part and parcel of the studio and that he should also be given possession of it. When the petitioner applied for more lard, he a‑plied for its allotment with a view to expand the studio but this request was turned down by Mr. Akhtar Husain, who, by his order Annexure 'F, finally settled the matter, being the ultimate authority. All along lilt the; decision of the case by Mr. Akhtar Husain, the plea of the petitioner was that the land in dispute was wanted by him for the expansion of the studio and not that it was a part of it. It was only on the 20th of January 1958 that he applied for allotment of the land to Sh. Noor Muhammad who informed him that the land sto3d allotted to him. That order was passed without any notice to the respondent. It is contended that Sh. Noor Muhammad could not cancel the allotment in favour of Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan without notice and without hearing him and that this order was rightly set aside by Ch. Abdul Hamid and finally confirmed by Mr. Khand, the authorities thus holding for the second time that the agricultural land was rightly allotted to respondent No. 1.

11. Replying to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that under section 11 of Act No. XLVII of 1958 Sayyed Hashim Raza, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis sioner, had the power to set aside the order of Mr. Khand, learned counsel for the Department urged that Sayyed Hashim Raza had no jurisdiction to interfere. Assuming for the sake of argument that he was acting under section 10 of the said Act, then under section 11 the Chief Settlement Commissioner had the C power to set aside the order only if the allotment was made under the Rehabilitation Scheme. The word "Scheme" as defined in subsection (7) of section 2 of Act XLVII of 1958 means : "A Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme prepared under sub section (1) of section 6 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956 (XLII of 1956) or section 7 of the Baluchistan (Rehabilitation) Regulation, 1950 (11 of 1950)." This definition does not include the 1950 Scheme. Moreover, the temporary allotment made in favour of Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan in 1949 preceded even that Scheme, and, therefore, the Chief Settlement Commissioner could not interfere with the order of Mr. Khand.

12. Mr. Akhtar Husain and Mr. Muhammad Yar Khan found that the allotment in favour of Dr. Yar Muhammad Khan was not under any of the Schemes. In support of his contention that Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din could review the order of his predecessor, Sayyed Hashim Raza, learned counsel for the Department relied upon Muhammad Tufail v. Abdul Ghafoor and others (P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 201) where it was held: "The power to review could only be exercised for the specific purpose of `correcting any error or supplying any omission' which appears on the surface of the record and could be detected without a further elaborate inquiry or investigation. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Further, the removal of any error will not confer power of 'review' ; it must be of a character that without correcting it the rights to which the parties may be entitled, cannot be adjusted." The petitioner had been representing to the Rehabilitation Authorities for the possession of the disputed land. He also applied to the Director of Industries and the latter had been writing that the land temporarily allotted to Dr. Yar Muhammad Klan should be allotted to the petitioner for the expansion of his studio. In the opinion of learned counsel for the Department, the Director of Industries had acted in the capacities of (i) Director, and (ii) Secretary of Industries. Ultimately the matter went up before Mr. Muhammad Yar Khan, who, after inspecting the spot in the presence of the parties, came to the conclusion that the land was agricultural and so in view of his final order, Sayyed Hashim Raza could not, in his capacity as Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, revise the order. His only power of review under the Land Settlement Act was under section 11, but this section is not attracted as the allotment was not made under any Scheme. Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din in para. 7 of his order observed. "There is 'yet another question 1 relating to the different jurisdictions of the rural and urban Rehabilitation Authorities, that is involved in this case. The land which answered to the description of agricultural land fell within the exclusive jurisdic tion of the Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) while urban property and industrial concerns came under the jurisdiction of the then Rehabilitation Commissioner (General) and the Industries Rehabilitation Board. Industrial concerns, wherever located were placed under the purview of the Board. In this case, the Board allotted the Studio to Mr. Rizvi and the rural Rehabilitation Authorities allotted the land (40 kanals and odd) to the respondents. While allotment of the studio remained undisputed, the allotment of the land to the respon dent was disputed by Mr. Rizvi. This dispute was resolved by the order of Mr. Akhtar Husain, Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) dated 24‑4..1952 and again by the order of Mr. Khand, Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) dated 27‑5‑1959. Both of them decided against Mr. Rizvi. These orders have attained finality and could not, under the law, be reviewed by my learned predecessor. A defect of jurisdiction has thus crept into his order which calls for reviewing it." Learned counsel for the respondent also referred to the observation of Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din para. 8 of his order, which has already been reproduced in this judgment.

13. Learned counsel for the Department relying upon the observations of Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din urged that as Sayyed Hashim Raza acted as Chief Settlement Commissioner, the order was without jurisdiction. Commenting on the order of Sayyed Hashim Raza, counsel for the Department urged that even according to it the land was agricultural and was required for the expansion of the studio, not that is was part and parcel of the studio. Furthermore, Sayyed Hashim Raza had no jurisdiction to exclude the land from allotment as urban land. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had no doubt, the power to exclude certain land, i.e., such evacuee land as may be declared as building sites, but the procedure for disposal of building sites as contemplated by section 13 of the Displaced t Persons (Land) Settlement Act, 1958, is as under :‑ "Any evacuee land declared by the Chief Settlement Commis ci'3ner to be a building site in pursuance of sub‑clause (b) of Ruse (3) of section 2 shall be disposed of in unrestricted public auction." Learned counsel for the Department submitted that according to section 11, mentioned above, Sayyed Hashim Raza could only have ordered disposal of the land in unrestricted public auction and had no right to amalgamate it with tire studio. His order was, therefore, wrong and without jurisdiction on this ground also. Moreover, he admitted in his order that it was agricultural land. The observation of Sayyed Hashim Raza that the current market value of the land be assessed and this amount recovered in a lump sum from Shaukat Husain Rizvi either in cash or against his compensation was also wrong because the price could not be recovered as the land had to be auctioned.

14. From the above discussion it is abundantly clear that Sayyed Hashim Raza had no power to set aside the order of Mr. Khand. The order passed by him was thus without jurisdiction and Pir Ahsan‑ud‑Din was competent to review it, there being a mistake apparent on the face of the record, namely, absence of jurisdiction. For the foregoing discussion we find no, force in this writ petition and dismiss it with costs. K.B.A. Petition dismissed.