1983 PLP 3143 (CLC)

Ch. Muhammad Sadiq for Respondent No.

2. Raja Abdul Razzaque for Respondent No.

3. Dates of hearing : 16th, 19th and 20th August, 1971. This Settlement Revision is directed against the order, dated 26th June, 1967 passed by Sardar Hidayat Ullah Khan, Settlement Commissioner (Land) with the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, West Pakistan, Lahore.

2. The facts of the case briefly are that Mst. Bhago, respondent No. 2 submitted Claire Form No. 672 for the Property abandoned by Matta and Allah Ditta sons of Phumman in village Lahore Majra (Nabha State) as successor‑in-interest of the above right holders. At the time of verification of the above claim, the Central Record Office also got verified the land belonging to Fatta and Natha sons of Phumman and sent the same to Multan District where allotment was made in the names of four right holders and a mutation of inheritance was also decided. Mst. Bhago and her son Habib, respondent. having been shown as successors in‑interest of, Fatta and Natha sons of Phumman, though they had no connection. Some informer made a complaint and the Enforcement Staff referred the case to the Martial Law Authorities under M.L.R. No.

49. The Sub‑Administrator, Matrial Law ordered the Deputy Com missioner Muitan, and the Commissioner that Mst. Bhago and nine others were not to be tried by Martial Law Court, but the area allotted on the above‑mentioned Claim No. 672 was to be resumed/confiscated as unauthorised allotment/possession, vide Annexure `A'. As a result of the above direction, the land allotted to four right holders, Matta and Allah Ditta sons of Phumman and Fatta and Natha sons of Phumman was cancelled and allotted to petitioner No. 1, in the revenue estate of Jodhpur and to petitioner No. 2 in the revenue estate of Mangavehr. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were only allotted land measuring 7 Kanals and 9 Marlas in Village Jodhpur and nothing in village Mangavehr.

3. Mst. Bbago respondent and nine others mentioned in Annexure 'A' were acquitted after trial by a Magistrate and thereafter respondents 2 and 3 put in a representation to Martial Law Administrator who for warded the same to the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Depart ment after examining the case came to the conclusion that Mst. Bhago, respondent No. 2 was only entitled to claim the entitlement of Fatta and Natha and this had been wrongly verified as the name of their father was also Phummau and was rightly cancelled. So the Deputy Secretary (Rural) to the Chief Settlement Commissioner issued Memo No. 76‑M/ C R O, dated 26th February, 1966 which is to the following effect :‑ "The matter has been examined. It appears that the Fard‑e‑Haqiats issued in the names of Matta god Allah 1?itts by the Central Record Office were correct, but Fard‑e‑Haqiats of Natha Fatta were wrongly issued as the names of the father of all the four claimants was same (Phumman). The Fard‑e‑Haqiats of the latter 2~right holders (Phatta and Natba) be deemed to stand cancelled and the same be returned to the Central Record Offce for consignment. As regards the land verified in the names of Matta and Allah Datta the Chief Settlement Commissioner had directed that you should proceed to decide the mutations of inheritance afresh and thereafter if earlier allotment has been cancelled, alternative land or the same land or a part of it (according to the correct entitlement) if still available may be re‑allotted or allotted to successors," Respondent No. 2 being dissatisfied made an application, dated 25th May, 1956 (Annexure `D') to the Chief Settlement Commissioner against the petitioners and respondents No. 1 issued notice to the petitioners to show cause why not the allotments of land in their names be cancel led and restored to respondents 2 and

3. Respondent No. 1, i. e. Settle ment Commissioner (Land), exercising the Powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner modified the previous order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner contained in the above‑mentioned memo., dated 26th February, 1966.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent No. 1, Settlement Commissioner (Land) exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, had no jurisdiction to review the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 26th February, 1966. We see great force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and hold that respondent No. 1, who was a delegates; had no jurisdiction to review the order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and his order is thus an illegal order having been passed without jurisdiction.

5. For the above reasons we accept this revision petition, set aside the order, dated 26th June, 1967 passed by respondent No. I and restore the order, dated 26th February, 1966 passed by the Chief Settlement Com missioner and remand the case to the Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Multan to decide the mutation inheritance afresh keeping in view the memo., referred to above. No order as to costs. M. A. R. Petition accepted.