P L D 1961 (W (PLP)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 21st February 1961. This is a Writ Petition for quashing the order of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner dated the 23rd June, 1960. The petition was filed at Lahore and admitted on the 22nd September, 1960. The Chief Justice has been pleased to transfer this petition to this Court for disposal. The facts given in the petition are very simple, The petitioner is a displaced person. He had been allotted some land in Nawab shah on the 12th September 1959. The respondent No. 1 Moulabux filed an appeal against that allotment which was dismissed. The respondent No. 1 also filed a revision which was also dismissed. The respondent No. 1 thereafter filed a review application before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis sioner, Hyderabad. The same has been allowed. The respon dent No. 1 has been called and is absent. On behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 the Advocate‑General has filed an application stating that the Government has decided not to defend this petition.

2. The main point for consideration is‑ whether the Settle ment and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Hyderabad could review the order passed by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions in revision under section 11 (4) of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956. The relevant provi sion of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act XLII of 1956 dealing with the power of review is section 11 (5) which reads as under:‑ "The Rehabilitation Commissioner or Additional, Deputy, or Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner may, after giving notice to the authorities concerned, review his own order, so far as justice may require, to correct errors or supply omis sions which are apparent on the face of the record." This provision of law is very clear. The Settlement and Rehabi litation Commissioner had no jurisdiction to review the order passed by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner as the order in question cannot be said to have been passed by him. Mr. Ihsanul Haq, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, in support of his contention that the order passed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner was without jurisdiction relied upon the case of Muhammad Tufail v. Abdul Ghafoor and others (P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 201). Their Lordships while considering a similar provision, of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance 19 of 1948, interpreted the words' "his own order" and held that these words can only mean the order made by the reviewing officer.

3. Even if the order passed by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, Mr. Akhund on the 13th of March 1960; were to be taken to have been passed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and, Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, the same could not be reviewed by the Settlement Commissioner for two reasons. In order to consider this aspect of the case the relevant provision of section 21 which deals with review reads as under:‑ 21. (1) The Chief Settlement Commissioner or a Settlement Commissioner or an Additional Settlement Commissioner or a Deputy Settlement Commissioner may either of his own motion at any time or on an application made in that behalf, within fifteen days, review, and while so reviewing modify, reverse, or confirm an order passed by himself or by any of his predecessors in office Provided that‑ (a) (i) a Settlement Commissioner shall not review any order passed, by iris, predecessor in officer without first obtaining the sanction‑ of the Chief Settlement Commissioner; (ii) an Additional Settlement Commissioner shall not review an order passed by his predecessor in office without first obtaining the sanction of the Settlement Commissioner of the area concerned; . . . . . " Reading the above provision it would appear that the Settlement Commissioner could review his own order or that of his predecessor and not that of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. In the second place, even if it be taken that the order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, on the 13th March, 1960, was that of the predecessor of the Settlement Commissioner the sanction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was necessary to review the said order. There is no such sanction. The order passed by the Settlement Commissioner in review on the 23rd June 1960, is without jurisdiction.

4. I would, for the reasons given above, quash the order dated the 23rd June 1960, passed by the Rehabilitation Commis sioner. I make no order as to costs as the respondents have not defended the present petition. K. B. A. Order quashed.