P L D 1976 Supreme Court 466 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.‑Muhammad Abdul Khaliq Siddiqi, ap pellant herein a displaced person from Hyderabad Daccan (India) abandoned landed property in a number of villages and on proper verification of his claim, under the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956, QPR V for 6674 units was issued. On the basis of this entitlement certificate he obtained allotment of land in Mianwali District. Under M. L. R. 84 a fresh scrutiny of claim was resorted to by the Government in order to eliminate bogus and inflated claims. Claimants were called upon to submit fresh statements of entitlement in a prescribed form MR I before the 20th of December 1961, alongwith QPR V. At the relevant time the appellant was out of the country on a visit to Hyderabad Daccan and learning about the fresh invitation of statements from newspapers submitted' from there an appli cation on a plain paper containing the relevant information about the area abandoned by him in different villages in Hyderabad. The application appears to have been received by the authorities on or about the 9th of February 1961, as conceded in the written statement. On his return he supplemented the same by another statement submitted in the prescribed form MR I in April 1961. The first application was not found to be in order for the reason that it was not submitted on a prescribed form while the second was rejected on the ground of limitation and consequently his previous entitlement was cancelled and was shown nil in the fresh QPR V. It appears that the summary order of rejection was made in the absence of the appellant who pursued the matter quite vigorously by submitting several representations to the Chief Settlement Commissioner and was ultimately informed by the Officer Incharge, Central Record Room vide his letter dated 16‑7‑1963 that his MR I had been rejected on ground of limitation. He was also refused a copy of the order on the ground that these were not judicial proceedings. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 1796/R of 1963, in the High Court of West Pakistan which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide order dated 16‑2‑1964 on the short ground that the appellant did not submit his statement on form M R I before 20‑2‑1961 the date pres cribed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner vide his press note dated 6‑1‑1961. Having failed before the LPA Bench, the appellant moved s petition for special leave to appeal ire this Court. Leave to appeal was granted to consider as to whether the steps taken and the course adopted by the appellant in the submission of his statements could be considered as sufficient compliance with the requirement of MLR

84. In support of the appeal it was contended on behalf of the appellant that MLR 84 itself did not prescribe a last date for the submission of statement in form MR I, that the whole object of MLR 84 as reconstituted by MLR 89 and further amended by MLR 91 was to scrutinise afresh all verified claims with a view to eliminate bogus claims and as such the mere fact that the appellant was not able to submit the statement on the prescribed form, which even otherwise was not available and had to be copied down from the office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, should not be strictly construed so as to penalise a genuine claimant and deprive him of his entitle ment. It was submitted that such a construction would be wholly contrary to the avowed object of this piece of legislation running counter to the well‑known principle of advancing the remedy and suppressing the mischief. It was next submitted that having supplied the necessary information to the authorities in the first instance, though on a simple piece of paper, which was received well in time and long before the target date i.e., 20‑2‑1961, the appellant had also submitted. on his return, a proper statement on the pres cribed form MR I, which should have been accepted, the requirements of limitation and of the prescribed form being merely directory in nature. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the Department relying on Abdullah Khan and others v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (1) contended that the prescription of a particular form as also the notification under MLR 84, regarding the last date were mandatory provisions whose violation was rightly penalised by the rejection of the appellant's QPR V and cancellation of his entitlement certificate. Mr. Lone who represented the Attorney‑General conceded that the requirement of the submission of a statement in a prescribed form was merely directory in nature and yet contended that its non‑compliance was rightly punished by the rejection of the MR I resulting in the cancellation of the appellant's entitle ment certificate. Having considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel we are of the considered opinion that the interpretation sought to be placed by the Settlement Authorities as also by the learned Judges of the High Court was contrary to the spirit of the legislation whose object was to eliminate bogus claims and not to deprive and punish genuine claimants. We may not, however, be understood to give a finding of fact in favour of the appellant as to the genuineness of his claim. In fact there appears to be no magic in the "prescribed form" which even otherwise was not available and had, it appears, to be copied down from the office of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Likewise the last date i.e., 20th of February 1961, was not fixed by the statute itself but by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under para. 3 of MLR

84. Having been taken through the record we are con vinced that the appellant had conducted himself with prudence having pursued the matter with all the vigilance that could be expected of a reasonable person. Being prevented by circumstances beyond his control he hastened to supply the necessary information on a plain paper which was dispatched from India. This application was received on 9‑2‑1961 about 12 days before the last date. On his return he took the extra precaution of submitting a fresh statement on the prescribed form and yet on a much too narrow and technical view of the matter, the authorities below cancelled' his entitlement certificate which decision was upheld by the learned Judges in the High Court. The receipt of the appellant's first statement sent from India well in time is conceded by the Department, the only defect or irregularity pointed out was that it was not submitted on the prescribed form. In our opinion this lacuna should not have been credited with fatality, the requirement being directory in nature as conceded by Mr. Lone. Abdullah Khan and others v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (1968 S C M R 1095) relied upon by the learned counsel for the Department proceeds on distinguishable facts. In that case the precise question was as to whether the Chief Settlement Commis sioner had the power to extend the last date notified in this regard. In the instant case, however, the question was that of the validity of the statement which was not submitted on the prescribed form. Even otherwise this court is invested with the .constitutional authority of doing complete justice and a mere technicality of this nature should not be allowed to frustrate the demands of justice. As a result of the foregoing discussion we allow the appeal, set aside the orders of the authorities and Courts below and direct that the Chief Settlement Commissioner should consider on merits the MR I/QPR V of the appellant and determine his entitlement afresh in accordance ,with law. S. A. H. Appeal allowed