1986 PLP 441 (MLD)

‑‑‑Ss.11 & 13‑‑Consolidation of holdings‑‑Grievances arising under‑ Remedy of‑‑ Grievances arising under consolidation operations, held, could only be redressed by functionaries under Ordinance VI of 1960. (c) Constitution oaf Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑Art.199‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), SS‑10 & 11‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Order passed by Authority in exercise of powers not vested in such Authority by law, held, could be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. Raja Mahmood Akhtar for Petitioners Nos. 1 and

2. Tanveer Ahmad Khan, A.A.‑G. with M.M. Saeed Baig for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th December 1985. This order will dispose of three connected writ petitions being No.200/R‑79, 201/11‑79 and 202/11‑79 in which the orders of an Additional Settlement Commissioner, dated 11‑12‑1976 purporting to be in exercise of powers under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land) Settlement Act, 1958 have been challenged.

2. The brief facts .are that certain land was sold‑by the Custodian Evacuee Property as well as the Federal Government in favour of the Forest Department. This matter is, beyond dispute. However, it so happened that there were consolidation operations in the village and in that consolidation the petitioners in each case were given some of the land which belonged to the Forest Department in their Wandas. The Forest Department instead of taking measures against the petitioners under the appropriate law moved an application under sections 10 and 11 of the Act before an Additional Settlement Commissioner on the assumption that the land was allotted to the petitioners under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. It was brought to the notice of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), Daska that the petitioners were locals and they had never been allotted any evacuee land but the land which was being questioned had been given to them in consolidation in lieu of their own land. Somehow or the other the Additional Settlement Commissioner, despite being cognizant of this fact, purported to cancel and allotment which was never made in favour of the petitioners. There being no allotment or lease in favour of the petitioners under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, there arose no question of invoking the provisions of sections 10 and 11 of the Act as is evident from a plain reading of these two provisions.

3. The grievance of the Forest Department in respect of doling away of their land in favour of the petitioners under the consolidation operations appropriately could only be redressed by functionaries under the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. The Forest Department therefore was clearly misdirected in invoking the jurisdiction of a wrong forum and that wrong forum was equally in error in assuming jurisdiction without examining the condition precedent for the exercise of its jurisdiction.

4. The learned Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab Mr.Tanvir. Ahmad Khan assisted by Mr. M . M . Saeed Baig, Advocate, on having examined the file submits that indeed it is true that no allotment or lease in favour of the petitioners was made under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and therefore, an Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) would figure nowhere and thus could not have ordered the cancellation of an imaginary allotment. The learned Additional Advocate‑General states however, that they would seek their remedies against the petitioners under the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960.

5. In view of the admitted position of the case that there was no allotment or lease in favour of the petitioners by the Settlement or Rehabilitation Authorities the impugned orders of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) Daska passed in purported exercise of powers under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The writ petitions are accordingly accepted. In view of the fair stance taken on behalf of the respondents by the learned Law Officer, there will be no order as to costs. A. A. Petitions accepted.