1987 PLP 616 (SCMR)

ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑The petitioner has sought leave to appeal from the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan Registry, dated 4‑10‑1986, whereby his constitutional petition was disposed of.

2. The facts are that the petitioner got his claim verified and applied to the Central Record Office, Lahore, for the issuance of entitlement certificate for the allotment of land. On the promulgation of M.L.R. 84 and on the failure of the petitioner to file an application in Form Q.P.R.‑1/UR1 within the prescribed limit, the said Office refused to issue him entitlement certificate of MR‑

1. On the disintegration of West Pakistan into four Provinces, the pending Settlement work was transferred to the respective Provinces and in the meantime the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act was repealed in the first instance by the repealing Ordinance of 1974 and then by the repealing Act of 1975. On 24‑3‑1976 the Central Record Office transferred the file of the petitioner to the Province of Sind which was later on allegedly transferred to the N . ‑W. F . P . It seems that on 8‑6‑1976 the Member Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, N.‑W.F.P., returned the file of the petitioner to the Central Record Office for the reason that it being a pending case was to be disposed of by the Organization empowered to issue revised entitlement certificate. Before the matter could be finalised by the Central Record Office, on 12‑6‑1976 the petitioner moved the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Bannu, under paragraph 20 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme for reservation of unallotted area in village Daddiwala, Tehsil Lakki, District Bannu, against his expected entitlement certificate. This was, however, done but the case of the petitioner was subsequently taken up under Scheme II prepared under the repealing Act of 1975. In the meantime the Central Record Office also issued entitlement certificate in the name of the petitioner and sent the same to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Bannu, for settlement of the claim. On 28‑7‑1976 the petitioner applied for allotment of the reserved land against his verified claim and allotment was accordingly made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Bannu, on 7‑12‑1976. Later on the Office Qanungo made a report that the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Peshawar, had stopped making fresh allotments as back as on 26‑6‑1974, hence the allotment in favour of the petitioner be cancelled. This was agreed upon by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lakki, who cancelled the allotment made to the petitioner on 30‑12‑1976. Aggrieved from this order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Bannu, who set aside the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lakki, dated 30‑12‑1976 (about the stoppage of fresh allotments) vide his order, dated 25‑1‑1977 but also remarked that his order was subject to the confirmation by the Board of Revenue. It seems that this case was again taken up by the Settlement Commissioner (Lands), D.I.Khan, who on 16‑5‑1977, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Najibullah Khan, his attorney, dismissed the revision petition by observing:‑‑ "Contents of the teleprinter message are clear. It has been clearly stated therein that even the proposals made before 30‑6‑1973 but not confirmed /approved now in view of the changed policy of the Government. In the present case the proposal of allotment has been made on 15‑11‑1976 by the Tehsildar, Lakki which is too late. It has been made when the Government policy for the disposal of remaining evacuee land subsequently transferred to the Central Government has been enunciated in Schemes Nos. I and 2 issued vide Endst. Nos. 2089‑49/PB, dated 16‑6‑1976. So, any order not covered by the above‑mentioned two schemes would be only redundant and untenable order. The revision of the petitioner is, therefore, rejected." This order was made subject‑matter of the constitutional petition which has resulted in the impugned order.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the various orders made in this case. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in the first instance the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) had no jurisdiction to review his earlier order passed by him on 25‑1‑1977‑ and secondly that the petitioner's case is to be considered to be a pending case and disposed of under the law which held the field before the repeal of the Settlement Laws. After carefully considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of various orders passed and in the light of the laws prevailing now, we think that the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court was proper. It is the case of the petitioner himself that he for the first time applied for reservation of land in his name under para. 20 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme on 12th June 1976. Admittedly the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act was repealed in the first instance of the repealing Ordinance of 1974 and then by the repealing Act of 1975, and the properties which had remained undisposed of, had been transferred to the Provincial Governments, therefore, the question whether the case of the petitioner was a pending case before the repeal of the Settlement Laws and other points noted by the learned Single Judge in para.7 of his judgment do require a detailed and proper determination by the Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction and thus the order of remand of the case to the Notified Officer does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. M. I. /M‑15/S. Petition dismissed.