1978 PLP 316 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.‑This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 19th of October 1967, passed by a Division Bench of the former High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore, whereby the writ petition No. 866‑8 of 1967 filed by the appellant against the respondents was dis missed summarily. ‑ Briefly the relevant facts are that Mohammad Ramzan appellant is a displaced person from Farid Kot State in India and settled in Chak No. 259/GB, Tehsil Vehari, District Multan on migration to Pakistan. In course of time land equivalent to 599 P.

1. Units was at first allotted to him against his verified Claim No. 2536 filed for this Chak. Afterwards respondents Nos. 4 and 5 filed a mukhbarl application against him. Accordingly, on the 28th of July 1964, the Additional Deputy Commissioner/ Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), Multan after enquiry ordered the cancellation of excess land equivalent to six P. I. Units held by the appellant. This order gave rise to‑two cross appeals filed by the appellant and respondents Nos. 4 and 5 against it. These were disposed of together by the Additional Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner (Land) on the‑ 13th of March 1965. He twice sent for re-verifica tion of the claim of the appellant and according to the reports submitted by the Central Record Room he was entitled to land equivalent to 328 P. I. Units. In this manner the Additional Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner found that the appellant was holding the land equivalent to 271 P. I. Units in excess of his entitlement which was ordered to be cancelled from his name. A revision filed by the appellant against the order was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner (Land), Multan on the 14th of May 1966. He was of the opinion that the claim form of the appellant was properly verified twice and it was established that he was holding the land allotted to him in excess of his entitlement to the extent of 271 P. I. Units. The appellant therefore, filed the Writ Petition No. 866‑R of 1966 under Article 98 (2) of the late Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1962) challenging the validity of the orders for the cancellation of the excess land from his name. However, the High Court after sending for a report from the Department summarily dismissed the petition. Before the High Court it was conceded on behalf of the appellant that the finding of the Settlement authorities to the effect that the land which had been cancelled from his allotment was in excess of his entitlement was correct and was not challenged before it. The only contention which was advanced before the High Court at the hearing was to the effect that the cancellation of the allotment could only be made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner or his delegatee under section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and that the officer who had passed the impugned order in the instant case did not have the delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to order the cancellation thereof and therefore his order was altogether without jurisdiction, But this contention was repelled by the High Court with the following observation. ..the petitioner was holding the land under the Rehabilitation Scheme which was prepared under the Rehabilitation Act. It will be noticed that the Officer concerned his acted as Rehabilitation Officer, and, therefore, it is quite obvious to us that the impugned order was passed by a competent authority and it was not necessary that he should have been delegated any power of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. It is not disputed that the Additional Deputy Commissioner was a Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the impugned 'order was not passed by an officer who had no jurisdiction in the matter.. Moreover, the petitioner had not come with clean hands." In this Court however, on the 21st of December 1968, in granting the leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court an altogether new line of attack was advanced on behalf of the appellant. It was conceded that the original order dated 28th of July 1964 had been passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), Multan vested with the delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. But it was submitted that as such his order was not susceptible for interference in appeal or revision at all and therefore no appeal or revision against the order was competent. This Court therefore, granted the leave to appeal to the petitioner appellant "to consider this point". At the hearing in the appeal before us the learned counsel for the appellant attempted to question the concurrent finding recorded by the Additional Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner (Land) in appeal and the Settlement Commissioner (Land) in revision to the effect that the appellant was holding the land in his allotment in excess to the extent of 271 P. I. Units. This finding was arrived at on the basis of the two successive reports received from the Central Record Room to that effect. Indeed, at the hearing of the writ petition before the High Court the learned counsel for the appellant even conceded that finding of the Settlement Authorities recorded in that connection was correct. Therefore, at this stage the appellant cannot be permitted to go behind this finding especially in the absence of any other satisfactory evidence placed on the record before us. Moreover, in this Court the leave to appeal was granted to the appellant on the limited question only to consider the point of jurisdiction of the appellate and revisional authorities raised by him. Now we shall take up the only question on which this leave to appeal was allowed by this Court on 21‑12‑1968. We find that since then the law on the point was amended with retrospective effect. In this connection subsection (3) was added to section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Law (Amendment) Ordinance I of 1972. It expressly lays down that any order passed by a Settlement Commissioner or an Additional, Deputy on Assistant Settlement Commissioner in exercise of any power delegated to him under subsection (2) shall be and shall be deemed always to have been, subject to the provisions of Chapter VI in the same manner and to the same extent as any other order passed by a Settlement Commissioner, Addi tional, Deputy or Assistant Settlement Commissioner, as the case may be, is so subject." In this manner therefore both the appellate and the revisional order passed in this case must be held to have been competently made and cannot be struck down on this ground. Accordingly this objection has itself fizzled out and no more remains a live issue before us. Last of all the learned counsel attempted to argue before us that at any rate the respondents who were at best Mukhbers only, had no locus standi to file the appeal which was eventually accepted in their favour by the Additional Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner. But this precise objection was not raised by the petitioner before any of the relevant authorities and cannot be allowed to be raised at this late stage before this Court. Moreover, the appellate order passed by the Additional Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner was upheld by the Settlement Commissioner who had ample revisional jurisdiction to act suo motu as well. Also, in this case, as already stated above, the leave to appeal was granted to the appellant on a limited question only and he is therefore, precluded from raising these extraneous issues before us at the hearing in this appeal. For the foregoing reasons we find that this appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.