P L D 1969 Lahore 379 (PLP)

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (L), if a claim in which an order under section 6 has been passed by a Claims Officer is such that on revaluation on the uniform basis it may exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Claims Officer, the order shall not be revised by the Claims Officer and the case shall be transferred to the Deputy Claims Commissioner concerned, who shall proceed to re‑verify the claim. (3) An order of the Deputy Claims Commissioner re‑verifying a claim under subsection (2) shall, for purposes of appeal, revision and review, be deemed to be an order made under section 6. (4) If in any such case as is referred to under subsection (1), an appeal or an application for revision or review under section 7 is pending, the officer before whom the appeal or application is pending may pass an order‑ (1) verifying the claim on the uniform basis, or (2) remanding the case to the officer who originally verified the claim for review under subsection (1) or if the claim is such as is ‑referred to in subsection (2) transferring the case to the Deputy Claims Commissioner for re‑verification and pending such verification, review or re‑verification, as the case may be, the consideration of the appeal or application shall be stayed." In pursuance of the power bestowed by the newly added section 7‑A, the case was taken up by the Claims Officer for fresh verification. This time, the learned Claims Officer assessed the rent of the house in question at Rs. 6,00 p.m., and multiplied it by 12 and then by

40. In this way, the ultimate figure worked out was again the same Rs. 2,880.03. Not feeling satisfied with the order of the Claims Officer, the petitioners filed an appeal, then a revision and then a second revision, all of which failed. They have come up in writ petition to this Court against the aforesaid orders of the Claims Organisation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that according to section 7‑A, an authority had been given to the Claims Officers for the revaluation of a claim only "on such uniform basis as may be prescribed". He submits that the prescribed basis is contained in Consolidated Instructions of the Claims Organization, Part II, Schedule I, Paragraphs 2 and 3 which read as follows:‑ "

2. Formulae based on the gross annual rental prescribed by Government to determine the present actual value of urban properties, which are to be strictly followed by all verifying officers, are as under:‑ (a) Houses and buildings occupied by tenants.‑The gross annual rent prevailing in 1946. (b) Houses occupied by owners.‑The gross annual rent calculated with reference to its rental value prevailing in 1946 plus a weightage in rent of 20 % (c) Open Sites.‑The prevailing price of similar sites in the locality in 1946 divided by 20: The gross annual rant will be multiplied by 40 to arrive at the present value of the property. In the case of a house or a shop situated within the limits of a Cantonment, the gross annual rent shall be multiplied by 25, instead of 40." "Government have, however, permitted deviations from the above formulae to the extent stated below, in respect of the following two classes of cases:‑ (1) Where a small building has been constructed on a big plot of land, then 4 times of the land occupied by the building may be treated as the building and valued according to the rent formulae, the remainder of the land, if any, may be valued as an open site. (2) Where the purchase price paid for a particular property under a registered sale deed exceeds its valuation under the prescribed formulae, its purchase price may be taken as its present capital value, provided there is no doubt as to the bona fides of the transaction and the genuineness of the deed. "(3) Regarding the assessment of rental value of properties, which is a most important point under this Schedule, it would be useful to quote here an extract from the observations made by the Claims Commissioner in a Revision, for guidance of all' officers :‑ The best evidence of rental value is documentary evidence, such as rent deeds, certified copies of Municipal Assessment, relevant entries in Property‑Tax Registers etc. The claimants are expected to produce such documents and it is only in cases where the Verifying Officer is fully satisfied that documentary evidence could not possibly be obtained by the Claimant, the rent should be fixed with reference to the importance of the locality, and the rent of similar properties prevailing in 1946 in the town where the properties claimed are situate, or in towns of similar importance and population in Pakistan. No weight should be attached to bald statements that the properties claimed could fetch so much rent. The finding as to the rental value should be arrived at after a thorough enquiry. The only witnesses who are competent to give evidence regarding rent are persons who either owned properties and had left them or the persons who had rented similar properties. It is the duty of the Verifying Officer to see that only relevant evidence is allowed. In almost all the cases that have come up in revision to me, the only evidence produced on the question of rental value consists in the vague statements of witnesses that the properties claimed could fetch so much rent. As I have already said, such evidence is not at all relevant and should be discouraged."

4. According to the learned counsel these instructions did not authorise the Claims Officer while revaluating a claim to fix up a new rental value of a property different from the one which may have been fixed under the old verification. The contention has no force. No such thing flows either from the provisions o section 7‑A or from the instructions relied upon by the learned counsel, which have been reproduced in extenso above. The 9 process of revaluation, in my opinion, would involve in it the scrutiny of the basic rent of a property also and if while bringing up the matter on uniform basis, the rent was re‑examined and re-fixed, it could not be said that the Claims Officer had exceeded his jurisdiction in that respect. The passage reproduced in the form of Paragraph 3 of the Instructions quoted above, also gives the same impression. Be that as it may, however, the petition cannot be accepted because the case was ultimately examined by the Claims Commissioner in his revisional jurisdiction as well. Even if, therefore, there was any defect in the, authority of the Claims Officer, who passed the subsequent order, since the revisional authority examined the case on merits and was not inclined to fix the rate of the rent of the house at Rs. 12.00 p.m., the rent of the property or the claim of the petitioners can hardly be enhanced by this Court. The proposi tion is well settled that where there may be defect in the passing of the orders on the part of the subordinate officers, that will be of no significance if the case has ultimately been examined on merits by revisional authorities. Reference for this may be made to Pir Muhammad Farid Jan v. Colonization Officer, Sukkur Barrage, Hyderabad and four others (P L D 1965 S C 399).

5. The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition has no merit and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. A. E./S.A. H. Petition dismissed.