1972 PLP 274 (SCMR)

WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the former West Pakistan High Court, Peshawar Bench, in Civil Revision No. 48 of 19(4 dated 27th October 1969. By this order the revision petition was dismissed. The dispute between the parties is in respect of 242 kanals situated in village Shero, Lundkhowar, and Gujar Garhi, Tehsil and District Mardan. This land was allotted to the appellants in the year 1951‑52 as displaced persons from Jammu & Kashmir State. On there action of the appellants' claim for the property abandoned in a occupied part of Jammu & Kashmir State the Patwari Reha ilitation Department, Mardan, reported on 13th February .1960, that as the claim of the appellants had been rejected the land allotted to them be cancelled' from their names and allotted to Mst. Gul Andama, respondent No. 5, in satisfaction of her verified claim. On this report the Assistant Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands), Mardan cancelled the allotment of the land from the appellants name by his order dated 14th February 1960. The appellants filed an appeal to the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands), Mardan, which was dismissed on 26th May 1960. The matter was, thereafter, taken in revision to the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands), which was also dismissed on 11th July 1960. The appellants filed a second revision petition with the Settlement Commissioner, Peshawar which was also dismissed on 19th February 1961. The appellants challenged these orders in revision petition before the Chief Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed summarily on 27th November 1961. While the revision petition of the appellants was pending before the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Pakistan, the appellants approached the Central Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Kashmir Affairs. A Liaison Officer of the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs, Government of Pakistan, addressed a letter to the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands), Mardan, enclosing therewith three applications of the appellants for sympathetic consideration as also inviting his attention to a Notification of the Chief Settlement Commissioner No. 1725‑60/1959‑R (S) dated 28th April 1960. Thereupon, the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands), Mardan, ordered on 27th March 1961, that the appellants' allotments are not to be cancelled and that the allotments already cancelled should be revised immediately. Accordingly, the allotments in favour of respondent No. 5 were cancelled. Respondent No. 5, the very next day, moved an application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to 'stay further proceedings and informed him that a third revision was pending before the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. Thereupon, the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner referred the matter to the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan, through a letter dated 22nd April 1961, for further instructions. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan, by letter dated 2nd June 1961, sent back the matter to Mr. Behram Khan, the then Settlement Commissioner, Peshawar, to pass suitable orders as he may deem fit by way of review under section 19 (2) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The Settlement Commissioner, Peshawar on 14th November 1961, reviewed the whole case and allotted only 180 kanals and 10 marlas of land to the appellants. The appellants being dissatisfied with this order applied for a review. Two days after this application for review was filed, the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner decided the third revision petition, which had been filed before him by the appellants, and dismissed the same on 27th November 1961. Respondent No. 5 brought this fact to the notice of the Settlement Commissioner, Peshawer, who again referred the matter to the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. Thereupon, the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, on the 8th December 1962,, asked the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Mardan, to decide the case afresh on merits under section 11 (1) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1,958, "as a delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner" and along with it sent him copy of the order of delegation. The appellants filed a review petition against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 27th November 1961, which was rejected on 24th July 1963. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner, Mardan, in exercise of his delegated authority decided the case on 12th March 1964, and restored the allotment of respondent No.

5. Being aggrieved by this order the appellants approached the High Court under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. This revision petition was dismissed by the High Court. The appellants have challenged the order of the High Court in this appeal before us. In support of the appeal Mr. S. Safdar Hussain, learned counsel for the appellant, has raised two contentions. In the first place, he has contended that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mardan, on the 12th March 1964, is an order without jurisdiction as the Deputy Commissioner, Mardan, was not a Deputy Settlement Commissioner. In this connection he has referred to the Notification No. F. (1) 64‑S. F.‑ 1 dated 12th February‑ 1964, whereby all the Deputy Commissioners were appointed Additional Settlement Commissioners and not Deputy Settlement Commissioners. In the second place, he has contended that the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Mardan, is without jurisdiction because section 11 (1) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, was not applicable to this case. The provisions of the said subsection are attracted only to cases of allotment of leases made under the scheme or under the Act. The scheme referred to in this section means, by virtue of section 2 (7) a Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme prepared under subsection (I) of section 6 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956, we will take up these objections separately. So far as the first objection is concerned that the Deputy Commissioner was not a Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Mr. Farooqi, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, had referred us to a case decided by this Court in Ramzan v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner (1969 SCMR126). He has referred to the following portion in the judgment:‑

"But Mr. A. R. Shaukat relied on an earlier Notification dated the 3rd February 1960, which had conferred similar powers on Deputy Commissioners as Deputy Settlement Commissioners, under section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. It is not shown that the earlier notification had ever been superseded by a subsequent one." Mr. Farooqi contended that there was an earlier notification issued on 3rd February 1960, under which the Deputy Commissioner was appointed as Deputy Settlement Commissioner and it was in exercise of the delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner that they were exercising power under section 11(1) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. The contention of the learned counsel is not without force since Mr. S. Safdar Hussain, learned counsel for the appellants, was unable to controvert this point. We, therefore, hold that the Deputy Commissioner has been appointed as Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, Mardan, was competent to decide the question referred to him as a delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. This point is, therefore, repelled. The next contention that this order is without jurisdiction because section 11 (1) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, was attracted only to the cases of allotment of leases made under the scheme or under the Act has also no force. In the present case temporary allotment was made in favour of the appellants in 1951‑

52. This allotment was not to be cancelled under para. 4‑A, sub‑clause (ix) of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Scheme which reads as under:‑ "4‑A. The following categories of land will not be allotted under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme and will remain as excluded from the Scheme:‑ "(ix) land allotted. on temporary basis to Jammu & Kashmir refugees." It further appears that later on a scheme for allotment of the evacuee agricultural land .to Jammu & Kashmir displaced persons was introduced. The preamble of this scheme shows that land was temporarily allotted under the provisions of the scheme prepared by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan, to displaced persons from occupied part of Jammu & Kashmir State with verified claims and holding entitlements certified in the prescribed form. Under this scheme the conditions of allotment were that the allotments would be purely temporary and would be made on the clear understanding that allottees shall have no right to alienate the land so allotted. It is, thus, quiet clear that the land which was allotted to the appellants was allotted to them under the scheme and, therefore, section 11(1) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, is fully applicable to the present case. After careful consideration of the facts of the case, we are satisfied that Mr. Jillani, the Deputy Commissioner, was fully competent to hear the dispute between the parties as a delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner and no objection can be raised against it on the ground that it was without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.