1974 PLP 465 (SCMR)

ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑This petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of the dismissal of a constitution petition filed by the petitioner in the Lahore High Court in respect of the transfer of a double‑storied evacuee house situate in Krishan Nagar, Lahore. By an order made on the 22nd of October 1960 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the whole of the house to respondent No. 2, Mahmoodullah Khan, by treating the same as one indivisible unit. The petitioner's appeal was rejected by the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 13th of April 1960, and her revision petition was also dismissed by Mr. Saeeduddin Khan, Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, by his order dated the 12th of June 1964. The appellate and the revisional authorities upheld the view expressed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to the effect that the house was net divisible. The learned Settlement Commissioner further observed that the petitioner was a non -claimant and could not have preference over the respondent. In the High Court, the order passed by Mr. Saeeduddin Khan in revision was challenged on the ground of want of jurisdiction. It was urged that he was only an Additional Settlement Commissioner and had not been appointed as a Settlement Commissioner, nor had he been specially empowered under subsection (3) of section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, to hear revision petitions against the appellate orders of Additional Settlement Com missioners. 'Relying upon notifications issued by the Central Government on the 29th of June 1963 and the 31st of March 1964 under subsection (1) of section 9 of the Act, read with a notification issued by the Chief Settle ment Commissioner on the lath of January 1960, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by subsections (3) and (4) of section 20 of the Act, the High Court has held that Mr. Saeeduddin Khan had not only been appointed as a Settlement Commissioner by the Central Government but bad also been specially empowered by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to hear revision petitions. The High Court has further taken note of the fact that the objection as to jurisdiction was not taken before Mr. Saeeduddin Khan when he had proceeded to hear the revision petition, which had been instituted by the petitioner herself. Finally, the High Court has held that once the house was treated as indivisible, the ‑petitioner could not get it in preference to the respondent who was a claimant in prior possession. Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that the High Court has erred in holding that Mr. Saeeduddin Khan had been appointed as a Settlement Commissioner and that he had been specially empowered to hear revision petitions. It is submitted that the notifications issued by the Central Government under section 9 of the Act merely invested Mr. Saeeduddin Khan with the powers of a Settlement Commissioner, with the result that he could not be deemed to have been appointed as a Settlement Commissioner, and with the further consequence that he could not, therefore, be specially empowered by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under subsection (3) of section 20 of the Act to hear and dispose of revision petitions directed against the appellate orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioners. We regret we see no merit in these `submissions. According to the notification issued on the 29th of June 1963 in exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of section 9 of the Act, the Central Government was pleased to invest Mr. Saeeduddin Khan, ex officio Additional Settlement Commissioner, Multan, with the powers of the Settlement Commissioner for Lahore Division in addition to his personal assignment for performance of duties and functions assigned to him by or under the said Act with immediate effect. By the second notification of the 31st March 1964 similar powers were conferred on this Officer for Sargodha Division. It seems to us that the learned Judge in the High Court has rightly observed that no special mode of appointment has been laid down in the Act, and that subsection (1) of section 9 of the Act is the only provision under which Officers of different ranks could be appointed by the Central Government and invested with relevant powers. Once, therefore, Mr. Saeeduddin Khan was invested with the powers of the 9 Settlement Commissioner by the Central Government acting under subsection (1) of section 9 of the Act, he must be deemed to have been appointed as a Settlement Commissioner for all purposes under the Act, and he would naturally enjoy all the powers pertaining to that office. This is precisely how the Department had been interpreting such notifications, and the High Court was right to take note of this departmental practice in the light of the dictum of this Court in Nazir Ahmad v. Pakistan (P L D 191‑0 S C 453 10). The learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to Barkat Ali v. M. S. Zaman (P L D 1968 Lah. 770) in support of his contention that an officer of the category of Mr. Saeeduddin Khan could not be deemed to have been appointed as a Settlement Commissioner. We find that in that case a similar objection had been taken before a learned Single Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore with regard to the revisional jurisdiction supposed to have been exercised by Mr. Zaman. In that case although there was a notification investing Mr. Zaman, an Additional Settlement Commissioner, with powers of the Settlement Commissioner, but there was nothing to show that he had been specially empowered by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to hear revision petitions. The learned Judge did not discuss the contention, as it was not necessary for him to decide the point for the reason that in fact Mr. Zaman had acted as an appellate authority and not as a revisional authority. However, the learned Judge did observe that "there is force in the argument so far as it goes". It will be seen that the point was not fully examined by the learned Judge, and, therefore, the brief observation relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be regarded as an authority in support of the contention raised here. We are inclined to agree with the view taken by the High Court in the present case, namely, that once the Central Government had conferred all the powers of the Settlement Commissioner on Mr. Saeeduddinr Khan under subsection (1) of section 9 of the Act, there was no reason not to regard him as a Settlement Commissioner for the purposes of the Act. Such being the case he would be competent to exercise revisional powers under section 20 of the Act if he was specially empowered in this behalf by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as required by subsection (3) of that section. Such Special empowerment was to be found in the general notification issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the 18th of January 1960, whereby he had conferred the special power on all Settlement Commissioners in West Pakistan and Karachi in their respective jurisdictions. On this view of the matter, we are satisfied that the High Court was right in repelling the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner on the question of jurisdiction. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.