P L D 1967 Lahore 42 (PLP)

Ch. Muhammad Sadiq for Petitioners. Sh. Ata Ullah Sajjad, Additional A.‑G. and Daud Ilyas for A.‑G. with Razi Haider Kanugo for Respondent. Dates of hearing: 16th and 23rd June 1966. JUDGEMENT K. E. CHAUHAN, J: The petitioners in this case are refugees from Village Baari, Tehsil Mandawar in Alwar State (India). They settled in Village Rai, Tehsil and District Lahore and filed claim forms for the land abandoned by them in India. Their claim forms were verified and necessary fard haqiyats were issued to them in the form of Annexures A/1 to A/

18. Land was duly allotted and confirmed to them on the basis of these fard haqiyats. It is the case of the petitioners that later on in year 1963, the Officer on Special Duty, Central Record Office sent new fard haqiyats to the local District Officers in the form of Annexures B/1 to B/16. The new fard haqiyats reduced the land of the petitioners. The case of the petitioners is that they put in an application to the O. S. D., Central Record Office praying for the intimation of the reasons which led to the reduction of the area but without any success. On this the petitioners filed the present writ petition in this Court on the 9th of December 1963, praying that the orders of the O. Sa D., Central Record Office, Lahore, issuing fard haqiyats of reduced areas should be set aside and that the previous fards of the petitioners should be upheld.

2. In the parawise comments, sent to this Court, the O. S. D., Central Record Office has reported that during the work connected with the amendments of registers of right holders for mentioning the 'section of the occupancy tenancy, under which the area of the occupancy tenants fell in respect of Village Baari, (along with other villages in the East Punjab) it was noticed that the area of shamilat had incorrectly been verified to the claimants of village Baari. It was further stated that previously, no jantri for shamilat land was prepared which caused irregular distribution of the shamilat area. A jantri was then later on prepared in order to find out the right and entitlement of each right holder out of the shamilat and according to the same, necessary amendments were made in the register of right‑holders and the claim forms were recalled for re‑verification and revised fard haqiyats (Annexures B/1 to B/16) were issued by the Central Record Officer. The Department further stated that the petitioners did make a representation on which the matter was again examined and it was found that correct verification has been made by the Central Record Office and no further action was, therefore, required. The petitioners, according to the Department were informed of the result through a robkar vide Despatch No. 6221 dated the 12th of December 1963 (Annexure R‑I). It is to be noted, however, that the writ petition in this case was instituted by the petitioners on the 9th of December 1963, which means that the robkar, to which reference is being made by the Department was sent by it three days after the institution of this writ petition. On the day, when the petitioners instituted the writ petition, they were, therefore, justified in saying that they had approached the office of the O. S. D., Central Record Office praying for the intimation of the reasons which led to the reduction of the area but without any success.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously argued that the manner in which the O. S. D., Central Record Office cancelled the previous Fard haqiyats and reduced the area from the names of the petitioners was arbitrary and illegal. His precise objection was hat the O. S. D. Central Record Office did not hear the petitioners and cancelled the area behind their backs without their knowledge and without giving them an opportunity of being he d or to defend themselves. The action of the O. S. D. Central a Record Office is, therefore, challenged as to be against the rules of natural justice and thus being in excess of his jurisdiction. In this connection learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon The Commissioner Karachi and another v. Mrs. Dina Sohrab Katrak (PLD1959SC45), Faridsons Ltd. and another v. Government of Pakistan and another (PLD 1961 SC537); Sh. Abdur Rehman v. The Collect r and Deputy Commissioner of Bahawal nagar and thirteen of hers (PLD1964SC461); University of Dacca v. Zakir Ahmad (PLD1965SC90); Abdus Saboor Khan v. Karachi University and another (P L D 1966 S C 536) and Saiya Abul Ala Maududi, etc. v. The Government of West Pakistan (P L D 1964 S C 673) for the purpose of showing that the principle of natural justice was involved in every action whether adminis trative or judicial whereby the rights of a party were to be affected. He contended that even though the statute under which the action was being taken by the authorities concerned might be silent on the subject of giving an audience, but in ,spite of that, the rules of natural justice are to be implied in that statute. The argument, was that Legislature knows the rules of natural justice and where it does not prescribe any rule different from the rides of natural justice, it means that the rules of natural justice are to be followed. In a case, however, where a rule different from the rules of natural justice has been prescribed by the Legislature, then, it was contended by the learned counsel for, the petitioners, the said rule as prescribed by the Legislature should be followed. There is no quarrel with the proposition which has been enunciated by the learned counsel for the petitioners The sole question, however, to be seen is whether in the instant case the Legislature has prescribed a different method in the procedure of verification and re‑verification of claims. For t is purpose, it is necessary to find out as to under which pro vision of law the claims are verified and what is the method an procedure for their verification and whether in view of the said method and procedure still the procedure of natural justice ca be put forward and relied upon at the level of O. S. D., Central Record Office.

4. So far s the claims of the' claimants involved in the present case are concerned, it is pertinent to mention that they were registered under Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act (V of 1949). Section 2.fa) .of the said Act defines a "claim" to moan a statement of loss or damage suffered by a refugee since tie 1st day of March 1947, in respect of the land within the territories now comprised in the Province of East Punjab, and Delhi, the East Punjab States and the States of Alwar, Bahartpur and Bikaner. Section 3 of said Act says that for the purpose of registering claims un r that Act, the Provincial Government may by notification a join one or more Settlement Officers and Assistant Settlement officers and may specify the local limits of their jurisdiction. Section 4 (1) says that a refugee may submit to the Registering officer on the prescribed form and supported by an affidavit an application for the registration of his claim in respect is land abandoned by him or which he has beets made to abandon Section 4(2) says that thereupon the Registering Officer hall register his claim. It is to be noted that a Registering Officer 's defined in section 2(e) to mean a Settlement Officer or Assistant Settlement Officers appointed under this Act and includes any Revenue Officer as defined in section 6 of the Punjab Land avenue Act (XVII of 1887) within the area of his jurisdiction. section 9 of the said Act states that the Provincial Government may by notification make such rules as may appear to it to be necessary or expedient for putting into effect the provisions of the Act. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 9 aforesaid, the Governor of the Punjab made rules on the 26th of April 1949, which were published in the Gazette dated the 6th o May 1949. Rule 1 requires the Settlement Officers to notify though the Press and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Financial Commis sioner, Resettlement and Colonies, the date which shall not be less the one month from the date of notification, by which applications of claim, under section 4 of the West Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) A t (V of .1949) were to be submitted. Rules 2 and 3 state that claim forms could be submitted in case of allottees to the Registering Officers of the District in which the land allotted to them lay, and in other cases the claim forms can be submitted to the' Registering Officer of the area in which they reside. Rule 8 (c) authorises the Financial Commissioner, Re‑settlement and ~ Colonies, to issue instructions regarding the manner in which is the claim shall be registered and dealt with. In the ensuing paragraphs I will show as to how a claim form is to be dealt with and disposed of.

5. The next document to be considered in this respect is the Rehabilitation and Re‑settlement Scheme, Punjab, which was initially framed in 1952 and later on in 1956 This Scheme is divided into two parts, viz. Part I which contains the Scheme itself and Part II which contains the instructions for the implementation of the said Scheme. In Para 2 of Part I of the Scheme it is laid down that all persons who the prescribed area owned land or held any occupancy or o her rights of a similar nature in land as may be specified by the Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) from time to time, may be allotted land subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed by him. Para. 4 stated that subject to any limitations that may be imposed under preceding clause (3), land under Scheme will be allotted to a claimant in an area corresponding in produce value of the land owned and abandoned by him. This right of a claimant however, was made subject to various' conditions and limitations which are scattered here and there in various paragraphs of the scheme and the instructions; but it is not necessary to refer to them for the purpose of adjudicating upon Nawaz the point presently involved in this case.

6. Para. 1 occurring in Part II of the Scheme lays down that the main function of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) will be to settle proprietors, occupancy tenants and other similar right‑holders from the; prescribed areas of India on land of approximately the same produce value, subject to the prescribed minimum and maxi um in the shortest possible time, with the minimum of dislocation and to the greatest‑ possible satisfaction of those who are, to be settled. Paragraph 2(2) of the Scheme states that the D. R. C. will also simultaneously have the list of all claim for and objections outstanding for verification arranged and prepared in accordance with the estates of the prescribed territories of India and sent to the Central Record Office. They Officer on Special Duty Central Record Office will ensure that these claim forms and objections are verified and returned with the last possible delay. Paragraph 29 lays down that rights under the;, Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme should be given to a claimant iii accordance with the entries in the Special Jamabandies received from the prescribed areas of India. It is thus clear that toe Central Record Office or the Officer on Special Duty in the Central Record Office was to verify the claims in accordance with the entries in the Special Jamabandi. After verifying the claims he was to issue what is known as a fard haqiyat to the claimant and it was . to be sent along with the verified claims to the District from which the claims were received. A pro forma of the fard haqiyat is given in the Appendix IV to the Scheme and is printed at page 429 of the Book (Evacuee Rehabilitation Laws), by Kazi Muhammad Ashraf ((Seventh) 1957 Edition). After the receipt of this fard haqiyat the D. R. C. (Lands) is supported to make an entry of it in the register in form R. L. I. (See paragraph 60 of the Scheme). On the basis of these fard haqiyats, the land verified is to be converted into unit and then the claimant concerned becomes eligible to get an area equivalent to the said units here in Pakistan (Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the Scheme refer). Para. 61 states that all objections against the verification of claim forms will be heard by the Naib Tehsildar of the circle. He will receive all objections presented to him by the refugee claimants and after registering them institute a summary inquiry and without rejecting anyone of them, forward all such objections to the Officer‑Incharge Central Record Office through the District Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) for re‑verification. The D. R. C. (Lands) is also to maintain an account of the receipt and disposal of objections to the entries of the fard haqiyat in the register in form R. L. I. In order to distinguish between the two entries, entries relating to claim forms will be made in blue or blank ink, while those pertaining to objections will be made in red ink under each respective estate in the register in Form R. L.

1. This Para. further lays down the programme to be observed in the disposal of objections in the field as well as in the Central Record Office. It goes on to say that the Central Record Room on receipt of the objection will dispose them of within a week from the date of its receipt and return it to the district concerned as soon as the re‑verification is completed. Para. 61‑A states that if the Naib‑Tehsildars consider that O. S. D., the objections to fard haqiyat relating to their jurisdiction are Central pending verification in the Central Record Room to the detriment Record of other deserving claimants they may, pay a visit to the Central Office Record Room and, get the disposal of these objections expedited. With regard to objections based on shares in the shamilat land, the area already verified will be allotted. Tatima fard haqiyats will issue subsequently in cases in which the chhant of shamilat land has not taken place. Paragraph 62 lays down that the D. R. C. (Lands) should offer another opportunity to a refugee claimant to raise an objection for a second time against his reverified claim subject to the roper enquiry being held by Gazetted Revenue Officer, who offer satisfying himself that the objection is genuine, may forward it to the Officer‑in‑Charge Central Record Room, through. the Deputy Commissioner/ Colonization Officer of the District or the Colony, etc. Thereafter, in Para. 68 is laid down the procedure as to how the land is to be proposed and confirmed in toe name of a refugee claimant. This para. further shows that on allotment, a claimant is to be issued a khatuni and then he can follow the land.

7. A perusal of the detailed provisions which have been mentioned above, goes to slow that all objections to the verification of claims are to be made on the, district level. The District Officers or the Settlement Officers are to examine those objections and then transmit the; same for verification to the Central Record Office. The Central Record office then takes up and deals with those objection;; and after going through them issues re‑verified claim forms to the refugee‑claimants if necessary. Against these re‑verified claim forms the claimants have again an opportunity of filing further objections. The function of the Central Record Office, it will' thus appear, is nothing except to check up the entries as contained in the Special Jamabandi received from India and to report whether the claim which a refugee has filed tallies with those entries or not. Whatever the answer of the Central Record Office may be, the District Officers can receive objections against the report of the Central Record Office and can go into the matter. An enquiry, it will thus appear is to be held at District level and not before the O. S. D., Centre Record Office. If a person feels aggrieved from the report or the verification or re‑verification made by the Central Record Office, he can raise whatever objections he might like to do before the District Settlement and Rehabilitation Officers who are, really to give effect to the report of the Central Record Office. They will have the jurisdiction to go into those objections and assess them in the light of the reply received from the Central Record Office for the purpose of arriving at a correct conclusion; they will also have the C authority to see as to which I version is correct, namely, of the objector or the one contained in the report of Central Record Room. For that purpose t y will also have the jurisdiction to see whether the entries, on which reliance is being placed by either party are correct or, not. It will thus appear that the Officer on Special Duty in the Central Record Office is merely a reporting agency and he is not a Court or a quasi‑judicial authority in any sense. The proper and final word is that of the Nawaz Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities who are to give al verdict on the list involved. The point raised by the learned O S. D. Central counsel for the petitioners that they were not given an Record opportunity by the O. S. D. Central Record Office in the matter Office of re‑verification of their claim forms therefore, does not hold Chauhan, J water. The petitioners have an opportunity of taking whatever objections they like at the District level against the re‑varified claim and the District Officers will have the jurisdiction to adjudicate them. Neither the version of the petitioners nor the report of the Central Record Office will be binding on the District Officers and they can, after putting into scales the evidence led by both sides, arrive at a conclusion of their own. Against the decisions of these Officers an elaborate machinery of appeals and revisions is provided for in the Rehabilitation and Settlement Laws. It is to be noticed that the O. S. D. Central Record Office is an officer appointed under the Punjab Refugees (Registration of Land Claims) Act (V of 1949). He is required to verify the claim forms in such a manner as may be laid down by the Financial Commissioner. The Financial Commissioner in the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme (it is to be noted that the Financial Commissioner' and the Rehabilitation Commissioner at that time was one and the same officer) has laid down an elaborate machinery for the purpose of guidance as to how the Claim Forms were to be dealt with and what were the functions of the Central Record Office in that behalf. The Scheme aforesaid gives ample opportunity and protection to refugee claimants to file their objections, and as discussed earlier, the petitioners have an ample other adequate remedy of taking whatever objections they like to the verification made by the O. S. D., Central Record Office at the District level. The present writ petition is wholly misconceived when it aims at seeking a direction from this Court against the O. S. D. Central Record Office to allow the' petitioners an opportunity of leading evidence before him or holding an enquiry at his level. The opportunity is to be given and the enquiry is to be held at an entirely different quarters where the petitioners can have their wrong, if any, redressed.

8. In view of what has been said above, the present writ petition is wholly misconceived and is premature. It is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. A. H. Petition dismissed.