1994CLC216 (PLP)

On a `Mukhbari' application filed by the present petitioners, Settlement Commissioner (Lands) by his order dated 12‑3‑1979, cancelled the allotment of Mst. Rabia Bibi, respondent Not. She challenged the order of the Settlement Commissioner in Writ Petition No. 393/R/79, which was accepted by this Court vide order dated 1‑12‑1985 and the case was remanded to the Notified Officer with the direction that he "shall hold an enquiry and thereafter record a finding whether in point of fact the application under sections 10 and 11 of the Act had been submitted before the repeal of the Act or was smuggled into the record through forgery or fraud. In case he comes to the conclusion that the proceedings were pending he shall proceed to dispose of the matter on merits and if the finding be otherwise then it is obvious that he would have no jurisdiction to proceed in the matter".

2. On remand, Additional Deputy Commissioner (Gujranwala), acting as the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands)/ Notified Officer, dismissed the `Mukhbari' application of the petitioners holding inter alia that it was not filed within the prescribed period and that it was smuggled into the record. This was vide order dated 21‑9‑1986, which order has been assailed in this Constitutional petition. 3. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties as also the learned counsel appearing for the Settlement Department. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Additional Deputy Commissioner A (General), who passed the impugned order was not vested with the powers under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. According to the learned counsel, the officer was only notified as Deputy Administrator of Residual Properties, and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to decide the petitioners' `Mukhbari' application. Learned counsel appearing for the Settlement Commissioner concedes this point. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is also unable to show that Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Gujranwala, who passed the impugned order was vested with the powers under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. That being so, this petition shall have to be accepted and the case remanded to an officer having jurisdiction to decide the petitioners' `Mukhbari' application. Learned counsel for the Settlement Department states that Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala, is the Notified Officer, for disposal of the matters under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. For the reasons stated above, this petition is accepted and the case remanded to the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala, with the direction that he shall decide the petitioners' `Mukhbari' application afresh in accordance with law, keeping in view the direction in the remand order of this Court dated 1‑12‑1985 passed in Writ Petition No. 393/R/79, of course, after hearing both the parties. No orders as to costs, AA./M‑1141/L Case remanded.