1986 PLP 526 (MLD)

Raja Muhammad Muzaffar for Petitioners. Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th December, 1985. Through this Constitutional Petition Mubarik Hussain and 2 others petitioners, want this Court to declare the orders, dated 22‑9‑1969 and 30‑12‑1976 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sialkot, respondent No.1 and Additional Settlement Commissioner (Consolidation) /Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Lahore, with Powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore respondent No.2, to be Without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The dispute relates to the land allotted to Syed Inayat Ali Shah, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners, in village Ballo, Tehsil Narowal. This land was allotted to him on 26‑4‑1961. Feeling aggrieved of this allotment, Muhammad Sharif and others, filed appeal before Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 2‑10‑1967. The appeal was dismissed as barred by time on 14‑3‑1968. Muhammad Sharif and others, also moved miscellaneous application before Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot/ Settlement Commissioner on 27‑8‑1967 which was dismissed on 28‑2‑1968. Muhammad Sharif also made Mukhbari application, for the cancellation of the land in dispute from the name of Syed Inayat Ali Shah on the ground that the same was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. After inquiry, the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot, respondent No.1 cancelled the land on 22‑9‑1969. Aggrieved of this order the petitioners filed revision before the Additional Commissioner/ Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore which was dismissed on 30‑12‑1976, hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners mainly contended that the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, respondent No.2 did not decide the revision for about a year after hearing the arguments of the parties and that the order, dated 31‑12‑1976 passed by him is not a legal order. Ch. M.Nazir Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to controvert him.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I 'find persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner had heard the arguments in the revision on 14‑11‑1975, the written arguments were also filed on 27‑11‑1975 and that he decided the revision on 30‑12‑1976 i.e. after more than a year. I further find that the impugned order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, respondent No.2 cannot be treated and termed as a legal order. The operative part may be reproduced advantageously: (3) "Nothing has been shown to the satisfaction of this Court, that the order of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Sialkot, dated 22‑9‑1969, is well‑based and calls for no interference. Accordingly, the revision is rejected." I am afraid the order reproduced above, cannot be approved by this Court. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner while writing the judgment has not followed the case‑law laid down by the Superior Courts in this behalf. It seems to me that instead of deciding the case after more than a year of the hearing of the arguments, the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner should have fixed the case for rehearing. For all these reasons, I am of the view, that the impugned order, dated 30‑12‑1976 is not only illegal but has also been passed without lawful authority.

5. For what has been said above, the petition is allowed and the case is sent back to Additional Commissioner (R)/Notified Officer, Gujranwala for fresh decision of the revision in accordance with law after giving the parties opportunity of being heard. A.A Petition allowed.