P L D 1966 (W (PLP)

2. Haji Muhammad Yusuf, the father of the petitioner purchased building standing on Survey No. 37, Sheet No. N. P. 11 for a sum of Rs. 80,000 from Dharamdas son of Khimandas, Udhavdas, Permanand and Isardas. He paid in all a sum of Rs. .55,000 out of the total consideration of Rs. 80,000 to the vendors. Since the agreement in question could not be confirmed under the Administration of Evacuee Property Law, the Additional Custodian (Judicial) by order dated 30th November 1951, accepted the claim of the petitioner's father to the extent of Rs. 55,000 with interest thereon at six per cent. per annum from 6th January 1948 up to the date of payment. This amount was to be a charge on the property belonging to evacuee owner. Haji Muhammad Yusuf died on 18th January 1959 leaving behind the petitioner, his widow and two brothers as his only heirs. On 4th May 1962 the Additional Custodian (Juducial) Evacuee Property, Karachi substituted the names of the heirs in place of deceased Haji Muhammad Yusuf.

3. The property in dispute was acquired by the Central Government under section 3 of the Displaced Persons (Compensa tion and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. In pursuance of the Settlement proceedings it was transferred to the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 1,71,600 on the basis of his possession. The petitioner claimed the satisfaction of the charge created by the Additional Custodian of Evacuee Property on the property in dispute. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner only allowed Rs. 55,000 and rejected the claim of the petitioner for the satisfaction of interest that had accrued by order dated 10th December 1962. The petitioner has challenged this order in this writ petition.

4. The main contention of Mr. Akhtar Mahmood, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to disallow the claim of the petitioner in respect of the interest that had accrued. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel it will be useful to reproduce the material portion of the order on this particular point which is as under:‑-- "The total amount of the charge is created Rs. 55,000 plus interest. Interest is not allowed under the rules. The case falls under exception (b)(ii) of rule 4(I) of the Satisfaction of Charges (E. P.) Rules, 1961. The amount to be satisfied under the rules comes to Rs. 55,

000. As reported by the D. S. C. nothing has been paid in satisfaction of this charge. I consequently direct that the applicants should be paid Rs. 55,000 (Rupees fifty‑five thousand only) in cash out of the Compensation Pool." It will thus be noticed that the learned officer rejected the claim of the petitioner for interest on the ground that it was not permissible under the rules made by the Central Government, under section 35 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, notified on 27th March 1961. Under clause 4, sub‑clause (2) of these Rules it is provided as under: "4 (2).‑No part of a charge representing interest. and no interest on any amount payable in satisfaction of a charge shall be paid." The learned counsel contended that this rule is ultra vires of the provisions of Administration of Evacuee Property Act X11 of 1957. He contended that under section 25, sub‑clause (2) (p) the Custodian was competent to create a charge on the evacuee property and the Settlement Authorities have no jurisdiction to curtail or modify the charge created by the Custodian under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Mr. Wasim, the learned counsel for the Department on the other hand contended that under section 3(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, reproduced below it was open to the Central Govern ment to prescribe the extent to which the charge created on an evacuee property would be satisfied:‑

"3 (4).‑The Central Government shall prescribe the extent to which, and the period within which‑ (a) any charge created by a Custodian or the Chief Settlement Commissioner on any property acquired under subsection (1) or subsection (2) or shall be satisfied and the manner in which it shall be satisfied." He further contended that under section 36, the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, have over‑riding effect and any inconsistent provision in the evacuee Law would not come in the way of the Central Govern ment to prescribe the extent to which a charge should be accepted.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have come to the conclusion that the Department was perfectly justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner in respect of the interest on the charge created by the Additional Custodian of Evacuee Property. Under the rules reproduced above the Settlement Authorities had been prohibited from accepting the claim in respect of any interest accrued on the charge. The rule applicable to such case is clause 4, sub‑clause (2) of the Rules notified on 27th March 1961, reproduced above.

6. Mr. Akhtar Mahmood's contention that these rules are in conflict with the provisions of Administration Evacuee Property Law cannot be accepted as sound in view of the provisions of section 31 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabi litation) Act, 1958. Under this provision, the provisions of the Displaced Persons Act and any rule or scheme or order made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsis tent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of such law. In view of this provision of law, it is quite clear that the provisions of the D. P. Act, 1958 and the rules prepared there under have an over‑riding effect on all other laws which are inconsistent to it. The contention of the petitioner, therefore, has no force and is rejected.

7. So far as the validity of the Rules under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, is concerned, Mr. Akhtar Mahmood has conceded that they are valid under the D. P. Act, 1958 and cannot be challenged on the ground that they are in any way inconsistent to the provisions of section 3(4) read with para. 17 and section 35 of the above‑mentioned enact ment. The learned counsel is very right in conceding this point, because under section 3(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensa tion and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, it is open to the Central Government to prescribe the extent to which the charge created by the Custodian would be met out of the Compensation Pool. In that view of the matter there is no force in this petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs. K. B. A. Petition dismissed.