1972 PLP 527 (SCMR)

SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑In this leave petition the jurisdiction of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner to reduce on reverification the allotment of the land made to the predecessor of respondents Nos. 2 and 3, has been challenged. Mohammad Khalil, predecessor‑in‑interest of the said respondents was allotted land in village Salim Kot, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Sahiwal, on 4‑4‑1952 in lieu of his claim verified by the Central Record Room. Upon his death in November 1959, mutation of inheritance was entered in favour of his heirs in respect of the disputed land on 24‑9‑1960. The petitioners subsequently discovered that although the land abandoned by Mohammad Khalil in India was Barani, he had got it verified as Sailabi, and had thus secured allotment in excess of his actual entitlement. The petitioners, accordingly, made an application as informers, and the matter was sent to the Central Record Room for reverification. On the reverified Fard‑e‑Haquiat supplied by the Central Record Room it was found that the information was correct, and the respondents were holding in excess. The Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) summoned the respondents, and having heard their Attorney Altafur Rahman, by the order dated 14‑10‑1961 directed that the 'surplus area be cancelled from the name of the respondents and the same be allotted to petitioner Baqar and one Rehmat Ali, predecessor‑in‑interest of petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and

3. This order was challenged on appeal by the heirs of Mohammad Khalil including respondents Nos. 2 and 3 separately, but the appeals were dismissed by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) on 24‑6‑196‑

5. Their revision petition was also unsuccessful before the Settlement Commissioner. They accordingly approached the High Court on a Constitution Petition and the petition was accepted. Hence the present petition by the petitioners. On reference to Chief Settlement Commissioner's Notification No. 6894‑69/491‑R (P) dated 5‑2‑1960 the High Court found that the powers on the Chief Settlement Commissioner under sec tion 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act were delegated to the Deputy Commissioners or the Additional Deputy Commissioners while acting as Deputy Settlement Commissioners. There was nothing to show that the Assistant Rehabilitation Com missioner was ever delegated these powers. It has been contended before us that under Para. 4 (c) of Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme the Rehabilitation Authority is competent to withdraw excess area at any time from a claimant who may be found to hold excess allotment. As such the impugned order of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) was legal. The short answer to this contention is that under sections 10 and 11 of the said Act the power of cancellation or reduction of the allotment is given to the Chief Settlement Commissioner alone. The Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme having been framed under the Act cannot go against the substantive provisions of the Act. In our opinion, therefore, the order of the High Court is correct. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.