1969 PLP 889 (SCMR)

Date of hearing : 11th October 1967. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑The petitioners, who are :migrants from India, came and settled in the district of Sheikhupura and were allotted various areas of lands there. These lands were confirmed in their favour in 1952 on the basis of the Fard‑e -Haqiyats issued to them by the Central Record Office after verification of their claims. In 1963, however, the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 moved the Enforcement‑ Department complaining that the areas verified in the claim forms of the petitioners were in excess of their entitlements. This was referred by the Enforcement Department to the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), Sheikhupura, who in his turn asked the Central Record Office, Lahore, to re‑verify the claims of the petitioners. The Central Record Office reported that neither the peti tioners nor their predecessors‑in‑interest had any hand in the earlier verification of the Fard‑e‑Haqiyats but there had been an error in calculation due to chhant (sorting) in the Shanzilat Deh area by the officials of the Central Record Office and in this way some excess area had been verified in favour of the petitioners. Upon this report the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), Ferozwala, declined to cancel the excess area as this excess area had been entered in the Fard‑e‑Haqiyats due to no fault of the petitioners. On appeal, however the Additional Settlement Commissioner directed the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner (Land) to take action keeping in view the re‑verified claims, as the case did not fall under section 10 or 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, but was a case of giving effect to a re‑verification by the Central Record Office. This order was upheld in revision by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. The petitioners then invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, but a Division Bench dis missed the petition in limine. They now seek special leave to appeal. It appears that before the High Court reliance was placed on a circular issued in January 1964, by the Settlement Department to the effect that ordinary cases of miscalculation of produce index units or wrong classification of soil and other errors of this nature should not be re‑opened. This was merely an instruction and had no statutory force. In any event, this instruction did not apply, for, this was not a case v; here powers under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act were being invoked. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners now presses the above ground as well as another ground to the effect that after an amendment made in December 1964, by Ordinance No. XIII of 1964 to section 15 of the above Act and the framing of new rule 7 he was entitled to retain the excess area on payment of its price as a person deemed to be permanently settled on the land. This amendment again does not apply in the present case, for, the amendment was made in the Land Settlement Act which was not being invoked in the present case. It is lastly contended that the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdic tion to cancel the excess area after the order had become final and the time for filing appeal and revision had expired, since section 5 of the Limitation Act was not applicable. Again, it must be pointed out that there is no substance in this contention, for, there the Settlement Authorities did not purport to exercise the power under the Land Settlement Act but merely gave effect to a re‑verified claim by correcting entries in the Fard‑e‑Haqiyats and as a consequence thereof the excess lands, which were in their possession, could not be retained by them. This action was taken under the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act which, by' section 11, gave wide powers to correct errors at any time. There is no substance, therefore, in this petition which is, accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.