P (PLP)

Sh. Muhammad Rashid'for Petitioner. Colony Assistant, Pakpattan on behalf of the State. The petitioner's father Karam Din, received a grant under the Landless and Ejected Tenants Scheme on the basis of a certificate of ejectment issued by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner. The ejectment proceedings against Karam Din, were filed by the landlord for acquisition of the land for khudkasht. In the course of these proceedings the parties com promised and Karam Din agreed to surrender the land. The Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner passed his order on the basis of this mutual settlement. The Collector however, regarded the, proceedings as collusive and cancelled Karam Din's Allot ment. Kararn Din has no died and his son, the petitioner, would have been entitled to claim the grant as his heir were it not for the fact that the grant has been cancelled on the ground that the father had procured his ejectment in collusion with the landlord. The case resolved itself into a crucial question whet her the ejectment proceedings held by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner and or passed by him in consequence thereof san be re‑opened and declared void and illegal by the Collector? The under lying legal issue was dealt with at length by the Supreme Court last year, as reported in P L D 1960 229‑

233. The extract which is relevant to the decision of this case is given below:‑ "This Scheme read with the parent legislation, provides a complete Code for ailments of evacuee lands to refugees or other persons and contains elaborate provisions for dealing with the claims made by refugees in respect of lands aban doned in India. Section 4 (2) of Act VI1 of 1956, declares that every order purporting to be made, or signed by the Rehabi litation authority, in lawful exercise of any power conferred by or under the Act, shall be presumed to have been so made by such an authority and no such order shall be called in question in any Court. Section 11 of 'the Act comprises self‑contained provisions in respect of appeals from orders of Rehabilitation Officer to higher officers in the Department. Section 12 of the Act contains provisions for revision of certain orders by Government. Section 13 lays down that an order passed by the Rehabilitation Commissioner or Additional, Deputy or Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner shall be final subject to the provisions of sections 11 and 12 and shall not be called in question in any judicial proceedings in any Court. As a result of this elucidation by the learned Judges of the Supreme Court, ii is obvious that the Collector was not compet ent to re‑open the proceedings held by the Assistant Rehabilita tion Commissioner and. pronounce them to be collusive and fraudulent. The Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner's order became final when it was not appealed against or impugned in revision within the provisions of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act. He was not, therefore, justified in rescinding the grant made to the petitioner's father under the Landless and Ejected Tenants Scheme merely on the basis of a finding which he recorded in excess of his jurisdiction and competence. The orders of the Courts below must, therefore, be set aside The petitioner is entitled to a re‑examination of his claim as an heir to the deceased grantee, and the case is remanded to the Collector for fresh disposal. K. M. A. Case remanded