P L D 1967 Lahore 1085 (PLP)

FAIZULLAH KHAN, J.‑This revision petition purporting to be under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act of 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and directed against the revisional order dated 2‑1‑1967 passed by the Addi tional Settlement Commissioner (Consolidation) with powers of Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha, Division, raises an interesting question involving the interpretation of section 21 of the Act pertaining to the revisional powers of the High Court. The question raised may be formulated thus‑ Whether the power of revision by the High Court under section 21 of the Act can be invoked when the power of appeal under section 18 of the Act and the revisional power of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 19(1) have been abrogated?

2. The question admits of a short answer and in the negative in that on a plain reading of section 21(l) the right of revision by the High Court is conditional and can be invoked when the following two conditions are fulfilled: (1) When the impugned order has been passed by "the Chief Settlement Commissioner". (2) The order must involve "a question of law".

3. Since the appellate and the revisional powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner respectively under sections 18(d) and 19(l) have been revoked by the Displaced Persons Laws Amend ment Ordinance, 1964 (XIII of 1964), which was promulgated on 24‑12‑1964, the question of exercising the revisional powers under section 21 would simply not arise.

4. The impugned order in the instant case was passed on 22‑6‑1966 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) exercising the powers of the Settlement Commissioner. This order cannot be called into question for the short and sensible reasons that the order was not passed at all by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Even if the order had been purported to be passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the order would have been without jurisdiction in that at the relevant time, namely, 22‑6‑1966, the revisional powers of the Chief Settle ment Commissioner had been revoked, and therefore section 21 could not be passed into service, until the revisional powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 19 had been restored.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to argue that the fact that section 21 was left un-amended notwithstanding the abrogation of the revisional powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, it was intended that the powers of the Settlement Commissioner would be subject to the revisional powers. The argument, in our view, is clearly misconceived in that the Court while interpreting section 21 cannot reconstruct the section by reading the words "Settlement Commissioner" for "Chief Settlement Commissioner".

6. For all the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this petition and dismiss it in limine. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.