1983 PLP 602 (CLC)

‑‑ Ss. 10 & ! 1‑‑.Contention that. case remanded to Deputy Settle ment ' Commissioner for decision but decided by Additional Settlement Commissioner as such without jurisdiction‑Case decided by a higher officer and petitioner not raising such objection at time of hearing of case‑Contention, held, without force in circumstances of case. (b) Displaced Persons (Lead Settlement) Act (XLVII d 1958)‑ ‑‑‑ Se. 10 & 11 and Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, para. 31 Petitioners vendees from bogus/unauthorised allottee whose allot ment cancelled and land re‑allotted to entitled allottee;‑Order of cancellation spearing order and passed by officer duly authorised to do so‑No exception, held, can be taken to such order. S. Ali Chaudhary for Petitioner. Respondents Nos. 3 to 7 were confirmed land at Khata No. 31 in the year 1954. Fourteen years later, a Chairman Allotment Committee can celled the allotment on 12th May, 1968. On appeal, the learned Addi tional Settlement Commissioner found that the Chairman Allotment Committee had no jurisdiction whatsoever and the order dated 12th May, 1968 was void altogether. He remanded the case to the Deputy Settle ment Commissioner to hear the parties in accordance with para. 31 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme and if some land was left after satis faction of the claim of respondents Nos. 3 to 7, that might be given to the then respondent Fateh Din. This is vide order dated 9th June, 1971. This was not being given effect to when the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 filed Writ Petition No. 1281/11/74 when the orders refusing to give effect to the orders dated 9th June, 1971 were declared tp be without lawful authority and the case was remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for determination of entitlement according to paragraph 31 of the Scheme as directed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 9th June, 1971. This is vide order dated 11th March, 1980. When it was being given effect to the petitioners who claim to be the purchasers from Fateh Din and, one Mst. Rashid Qamar Sultana who had been allotted the land after cancellation from the names of respondents Nos. 3 to 7 on 12th May, 1968, appeared before the Assistant Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner who heard the matter remanded by the High Court. He came to the conclusion that "Bashir Ahmad Khan claimant of claim form No. 919 and Ghulam Farid Khan claimant of Claim Form No. 13917 are entitled to 2836 units each. As the area reduced from the allotment at Khata No. 31 had is turn been confirmed in the names of Fateh Din and Rashid Qamar Sultana at Khatas No. 83.84‑85 against 1230, 1442 "sod 411 units, therefore, 1 restore the entire allotment of Khata No. 31 against 3368 units and order that the area cancelled from their allotment and con firmed against the claims of Fateh Din and Rashid Qamar Sultana shall henceforth stand cancelled and be resumed. The area found in excess from Fateh Din (a bogus allottee) shall be forfeited in favour of the Central Government." This is vide order dated 18th March, 1981. The petitioners challenged this order by means of an appeal which was dis missed for lack of jurisdiction by the Settlement Commissioner vide order;: dated 15th November, 1981. Hence this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the res pondents Nos. 3 to 7's Writ Petition No. 1281/11/14 was accepted and case remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. It has trot been decided by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner but by an Additional Settlement Commissioner and secondly, that only a notified officer could deal with the matter in view of the repealing Act XIV of 1975. Therefore. the orders dated 18th March, 1981 and 15th November, 1981 are without lawful authority. It is also contended that Mst. Rashid Qamar Sultana was not a party to the proceedings upto the remand order by this Court in the aforementioned writ petition and, therefore, the allotments made in her favour could not have been cancelled in the present proceedings.

3. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no substance. No doubt the case was remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by the High Court on 1 t th March, 1980 but i has teen heard by an higher officer, the Additional Settlement Commis sioner. The petitioner can hardly make any grievance. The Addition Settlement Commissioner was also the Assistant Commissioner and al .A these officers have been notified for the purposes of taking action under Act XIV of 1975. So, the objection regarding jurisdiction of the Additional Settlement Commissioner who passed the speaking order on 18th March, 1981 is without force. Moreover the petitioners had not raised any objection regarding the hearing of the matter by the Assistant Com missioner, Additional Settlement Commissioner. As regards the contention that Mst. Rashid Qamar Sultana was not a party prior to the remand order by this Court, it need only be said that the petitioners who claim to be vendees from her, appeared before the Officer who had pas the impugned order and had contested the respondents Nos. 3 to 7`s case urging points in favour, of their predecessor‑in‑interest Mst. Rashid Qamar Sultana and in their own favour. Therefore, no grievance on the score can legitimately be made. Another contention raised by the learn counsel for the petitioners was that there was only one claim of the res pondents Nos. 3 to 7 in the beginning and now in the impugned orde two claims are mentioned and that could not be done. It is not the number of claims but the actual area verified in the claims which required adjustment for allotment in lieu of the verified claim. in any case, the learned Assistant Commissioner Additional Settlement Commissioner in the impugned order dates 18th March. 1981 has restored the allotments of the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 at Khata No.

31. It may be recapitulated that this allotment at Khata No. 31 was made to the respondents Nos. 3 t 7 nearly two decades ago in the years 1954. Fourteen years later, a Chair man had cancelled that allotment which had been found to be void altogether by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 9th June, .1971 and if that order `of the Chairman was void, that meant that nothing could be done under that order and the allotment in favour of the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 would remain as it was made in 1954 and if the Assistant Commissioner/Additional Settlement Commissioner has so said in 1981 that what was allotted to the respondents Nos. 3 to 7 in 1954, shall be restored to them, he has done nothing more than to set the wron a right and no exception can be taken to his order.

4. In view of what has been stated above, there is no force in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.