P L D 1973 Lahore 215 (PLP)

"Government does not see any justification to re‑open a case which has been closed judicially as well as administra tively. The relation between Major‑General Abdur Rehman Khan and the petitioners is that of a landlord and tenants respectively." Major‑General Abdul Rehman Khan died in 1959 and the petitioners were ejected before that date. (These facts are stated fin the impugned order and are not disputed by the petitioners). On these facts the Additional Deputy Commissioner as a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner held that the allotment in favour of Major‑General Abdul Rehman Khan under whom the respondent's claim was unexceptionable and in particular when there was no bar for the allotment of the laud under the Scheme on the ground that it was under the= temporary allotment of Jammu and Kashmir refugees.

3. The first question which arises for determination W whether the petitioners can file this petition under section 21 of the Act. It is only an aggrieved person who is competent to invoke the revisional jurisdiction under section

21. The delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was seized of the matter under section 11 of the Act. The facts of the case, in his opinion, did not warrant for any action under section 11 which empowered him to cancel or terminate any allotment made under the Scheme or under the Act. Section I1 confers a power on the Chief Settlement Commissioner who can take action by cancellation of land in certain circumstances but it does not create or confer any right in favour of any person to invoke the jurisdiction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under the Act. If any person moves an application, he does so by way of laying information to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for enabling him to exercise hi powers. If the Chief Settlement Commissioner does not ac on that information or if he holds some inquiry on the basis of that information and does not cancel an allotment under sections 10 and 11, the order does not, in any way, adversely affect the right or Interest of the informant. In order that a person may be an aggrieved he must show as is held in Abida Khatoon v. Mian Ghulam Shabbir, Settlement Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan (PLD1964SC793) "That the informant, like a complainant in a criminal case has an interest in the end result, and therefore independent locus standi to pursue the proceedings and that in the event of the information leading to a positive result, the informant has a vested interest in the property. Neither of these suppositions has the least support in law. If the Settlement Authorities acting on a reference by the Enforcement Staff bold the transfer to be irregular, the transferee having a vested right in the property may move by way of appeal, and, if a writ be competent, in the High Court. But the informant has no vested right in the property, and certainly would have no right of appeal or revision under the Displaced. Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 to have the decision re‑considered or reversed, if it went in favour of the transfer being regular:' Learned counsel contends that if the order had been set aside the petitioner would have ipso facto become entitled to the land which was held by them in their temporary allotment and since they would have been the beneficiaries, they are the aggrieved persons. The petitioners would have been well within their right to so contend if there had been a right vested in them to compel the Chief Settlement Commissioner to take action under section

11. This however, is not the case. The allotment was made to respondent admittedly in 1952. The petitioners were dispossessed before 1959. Even if they were ignorant of the allotment, as is contended they mast have known of the same at the time of their ejectment, They should have challenged the order of allotment by appeal under the Rehabilitation Act, which was a substantive right available to them under law. The learned counsel contended that the appeal would have been barred by limitation. We are not called upon to examine that question in these proceed ings. But it is now well established by authority that if a person is able to make out that he was entitled to a notice C or hearing before the impugned order is passed, he can prefer an appeal even after the expiry of the period of limitation provided he establishes that the order was without a notice to him. See Syed Mahamud Alam v. Syed Mehdi Hussain and 2 others (P L D 1970 Lah. 6) and Allahdino v. Fakir Muhammad and another (P L D 1969 S C 582). They did not avail of the right of appeal vested in them by law; and by the rejection of their application which is only an information given to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to enable him to act under sections 10 and 11, they do not become aggrieved persons.

4. However, we are of the opinion that the petitioners even cannot succeed on merits. The land allotted on temporary basis to Jammu and Kashmir refugees was excluded from allotment under the Rehabilitation Scheme by para. 4(a) of West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme No.

56. The land in dispute was allotted to the respondent in 1952 when the lands were being provisionally and permanently allotted under the Punjab Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme

52. We have perused the Scheme with the help of the learned counsel and do not find any provision whereby the land allotted on temporary basis to Jammu and Kashmir refugees in lieu of maintenance was excluded from allotment under the Scheme. The provisions of paragraph 4(A) of Settlement Scheme No. 56 cannot be pressed into service to operate retrospectively to allotments which had, been made earlier.

5. The learned counsel relying on para. 16 of Scheme of 52 contended that the petitioner had not committed breach of conditions of allotment and therefore, they could not be deprived of the benefit of their temporary allotment. Para. 16 reads as : "

16. When the competent Rehabilitation Authority is satisfied that a person to whom allotment has been made under the Scheme has committed a breach of the conditions of the allotment he may, after giving that person an oppor tunity to show cause, order the resumption of the allotment." The word used here is 'allotment' and not 'temporary allotment'. Wherever the framers of the Scheme had intended to make a provision to apply to temporary allottees they have used the words 'temporary allotment'. Temporary allotment is defined in clause (viii) of paragraph 1 of the Scheme as :‑ "(viii) 'Temporary allotment' with its grammatical variations means allotment under the provisions of the Act other than an allotment under this Scheme." Clause 2 in Chapter II of the Scheme reads as :‑ "

2. All persons, who, in the prescribed area, owned land or hold occupancy or other rights of a similar nature in land as may be specified by the Rehabilitation Commissioner. West Pakistan, from time to time, may be allotted land subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by him: Paragraph 16 is also in Chapter II. The allotment referred to in paragraph 16 is referable to the allotments made in paragraph 2 and not to temporary allotments. Wherever it was to be provided to give any benefit to the temporary allottees it was clearly specified. Under paragraph 9(a) of Chapter I of Part II of the Scheme it is provided :‑ 9‑A. If a temporary allottee gets his claims transferred or re‑transferred in the village where he already holds allotment before the allotment of the area in question is finalised in favour of some other claimants under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, the original temporary allottee shall have a preferential claim and should be allotted the very land: The temporary allottees were thus given preference for allot ment over other persons in respect of the land which was in their possession. The temporary allottees could also claim benefit under paragraph 23 which reads as :‑ "

23. The Rehabilitation Authorities will not dispossess a refugee from his present temporary allotment until he has been provided with land in the new district to which his claim form has been transferred." The petitioners were not claimants and therefore, could not claim benefit of either paragraph 9(a) or 23 of the Scheme of

52. The fact however, remains that their temporary allotments in lieu of maintenance as Jammu & Kashmir refugees was not bar to the allotment of the land in their possession to a claimant under the Rehabilitation Scheme of

52. The allotment made in favour of the respondent was therefore, unexceptionable. The petition has no merit and is dismissed in limine. A. E. Petition dismissed in limine.