1984 PLP 884 (CLC)

‑‑ S. 2 (2)‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Evacuee pro perty‑Certificate of entitlement‑Officer authorised under S. 2(2) fully relying on decision and finding of Officer on Special Duty Central Record Room and rejecting application of petitioner for issuing entitlement certificate‑Officer on Special Duty unilaterally withholding entitlement Certificate‑Orders set aside and case re manded back to Officer authorised under S. 2(2) of Act with direction not to rely on finding of O.S.D. and make his own indepen dent inquiry with proper and just application of mind and then come to conclusion according to guideline laid down by Supreme Court in P L D 1973 S C

236. Raunak All v. Chief Settlement Commissioner P L D 1973 S C 236 ref This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order, dated 29th May, 1976 passed by officer authorised under section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws Repealing Act XIV of 1975, where by application of the petitioner namely Mst. Farida Khatoon for issuance. of entitlement certificate has been rejected.

2. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to the petition are that Mst. Farida Khatoon is a displaced person from Hyderabad State and migrated to Pakistan on 27th November, 1948. She is now settled in Karachi. Petitioner claims to have left her share in Jagir Dehmangaon and Krobvadi comprising agricultural land and gardens in Hyderabad State. Petitioner filed her claim No. 3004/VIII on 31st July, 1958 before the Claims Commissioner, Karachi. After usual verification orders were passed for 148 acres of land as her share in the said Jagir. Thereafter petitioner applied for issuance of entitlement certificate before Officer on Special Duty. It is the case of the petitioner that in the process Officer on Special Duty unilaterally cancelled all entitlement certificates already issued on the basis of Jagir claims and withheld the entitlement certificate of the petitioner which in the result could not issued. Petitioner filed appeal before the Chief Settlement Commissioner but the same was rejected.

3. It is submitted by the petitioner that a large number of claimants like her were hit by cancellation orders and some of them filed writ petitions in the High Court and the matter went up to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court was pleased to quash the cancellation orders of the Officer on Special Duty and further held that such orders were without jurisdiction and the cases were remanded back to the Claims Commissioner for re‑examina tion in the light of guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court on the sub ject. The famous decision of the Supreme Court. in the case of Raunak Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (1).

4. With regard to the powers and functions of the Officer on Special Duty, the relevant paragraph from the decision of the Supreme Court is re produced as under "It will be observed from this that the Officer on Special Duty (Cen tral Record Office) had no right to cancel an allotment, for, after getting I.R. IV Form back, he had to send out Q.P.R. VII and Q.P.R. IX Form to the District Rehabilitation Authorities concerned to cancel or reduce the allotment already made. The District Authori ties, after making the cancellation or the reduction, as the case may be were then to intimate to the Officer on Special Duty the fact of their having complied with the above instructions. Paragraph 25 of this Scheme further shows that Officer on Special Duty has no power even to transfer the claim from one District to another but he is to be only informed of the transfer made so as the relevant registers. Reading these provisions as a whole, the question does arise as to whether the previsions of paragraphs 6 to 8 on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the Officer on Special Duty did vest the Officer on Special Duty with the power either to correct a verification order or to cancel it or even to treat it as a nullity. The Officer on Special Duty, even if equal in status to a Claims Commissioner, could not normally have the right to sit on appeal over another authority having exclusive and final jurisdiction in the matter, as has been given by the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 to the heirarchy of verifying officers appointed thereunder. I can find nothing in the Supplementary Rural Scheme No. 1 to vest the Officer on Special Duty with such a power. All that the Officer on Special Duty could perhaps do, in such circumstances, was to refer the case back to the Claims Commissioner to consider whether he would, in exercise of his powers under subsection (3) of section 7 revise the verification order. In this connection, reference is made to the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in the case of Nawaz Khan v. O.S.D.Central Record Office, Lahore (P L D 1973 S C 236) where after examining the provisions of the Rehabilitation Resettlement Scheme (Punjab) and the Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Rules, 1949 was ``merely a reporting agency" and that he was "not a Court or a quasi‑judicial authority in any sense". The proper and final word was that of Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities who were to give a verdict on the lis involved."

5. In the instant case the Claims Commissioner Sind following the decision of the Supreme Court issued notice to the petitioner on 23rd Feb ruary, 1974 for further inquiry in the matter. Petitioner appeared before the Additional Settlement Commissioner/Officer Authorised under section 2(2) of the Repealing Act and her application, dated 25th July, 1960 for issuance of entitlement certificate was registered on 29th May, 1976 on the ground that petitioner had not filed any writ petition against the illegal orders of Officer on Special Duty. Perusal of the impugned order further indicates that the officer authorised had fully relied upon the decision and findings of the O S.D., which he should not have done in view of the decision of the Supreme Court The relevant portion from the impugned order, which speaks for itself, is reproduced hereunder: "The applicant has enclosed photo copy of the letter dated 8th January, 1963 issued by the Tehsildar, Central Record Room, Lahore, address ed to the applicant intimating him that her claim pertains to Jagir Land, which comes under. Schedule V‑A. In view of this, the Officer on Special Duty has held that no claimant is entitled to compensa tion, therefore, no entitlement certificate could be issued."

6. This clearly shows that the Officer authorised has placed full reliance upon the finding of the Officer on Special Duty: whose powers and functions have been called in question by the Supreme Court in the decision reported and mentioned above. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Officer authorised under section 2(2) of the Repealing Act, 1975 with direction that he should not rely upon the, findings of the Officer on Special Duty but should make his own independent 14 inquiry with proper and just application of mind and then come to con clusion. In the result, this Constitutional petition is allowed and the case, is remanded back as stated above for expeditious disposal according to the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the celebrated case reported which is mentioned above. M. Y. H. Petition allowed.