1968 PLP 1293 (SCMR)

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 24th October 1961, in

1. P. A. No. 68/61). -- Ss. 11 (4) & 7 (1) read with Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, Part I para. 23 Rehabilitation Commissioner may pass an omnibus order in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under S. 11 (4) and may make an order directing general revision of allotments in a chak. Abdul Ghafoor and others v. Rehabilitation Commissioner etc. P L D 1958 Lah. 48 and Abdul Hafiz v. Rehabilitation Commis sioner and 4 others P L D 1966 S C 483 ref. Respondents: Ex parte. JUDGMENT SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑This is a certificated appeal from the judgment and order of a Letters Patent Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, affirming that of a learned Single Judge of that Court whereby on a petition filed by Ch. Ilam‑ud‑Din respondent (who has since died and is represented by his legal representatives), the land in dispute measuring 38 Kanals and 10 Marlas in Chak No. 295/EB, Tehsil Pakpattan, District Montgomery (Sahiwal) was removed from the allotment of the appellants and made over to deceased Ilam‑ud‑Din, by annulment of the orders of the Rehabilitation authorities made in this behalf. The facts may shortly be stated. The provisional permanent settlement of evacuee agricultural land made in respect of Chak No. 295/EB was found to be unsatisfactory as some right- holders with long standing claims for land in this Chak had got nothing whereas some others had obtained lands in exce3s of their entitlement. The Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) therefore ordered on the 25th of June 1953, that a general revision of the allotments in the Chak should be carried out. This order was subsequently modified on the 22nd of June 1955, on a review petition filed by Ilam‑ud‑Din aforesaid and a direction was given that only those right‑holders whose claims were pending in this estate on the 29th of September 1953, should be allotted land subject to maximum of 320 units in each case. Consequently, fresh allotments were made to the right‑holders by which the disputed land was allotted to the appellants on 8‑1‑1956. Ilam‑ud‑Din contested this allotment by filing appeals before the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land), on the ground that he had a preferential claim to this land because it formed part of his temporary allotment. The appeals were accepted on 7‑1‑1957 and the disputed area was withdrawn from the Khata of the appellants. Later the appellants found that llam‑ud‑Din's plea that the land in question was a part of his temporary allotment, was false. They filed a review petition on that basis which was head after due notice to Ilam‑ud‑Din and decided in the appellants' favour with the result that the land in dispute was restored to them. Ilam‑ud‑Din chal lenged this review order in revision before the Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan without success. The matter was then brought to the High Court in Writ jurisdiction by Ilam‑ud‑Din and the main grievance urged was that the omnibus revisional orders of the Rehabilitation Commissioner made on the 15th of June 1953, as modified on the 22nd of June 1955 were illegal and void and that the provisional allotment of the land in dispute made in his favour in 1951 was valid. The review order passed by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner on 7‑1‑1957 was also challenged. A learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted this petition and an appeal against that order filed by the appellants before a Letters Patent Bench of the High Court was also dismissed but the matter was certified as fit one for appeal to this Court. It appears that the learned Single Judge as well as the Letters Patent Bench were guided in their decisions by an earlier judgment of a Division Bench of that Court to the case of Abdul Ghafoor and others v. Rehabilitation Commissioner etc. (P L D 1958 Lah. 48) wherein it was held, firstly, that a Rehabilitation Commissioner had no power to pass an omnibus order in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under section 11, subsection (4) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1956 without giving notice to individuals in the manner contemplated by subsection (4) of section 11 of the Act and secondly, that once an order of allotment had achieved finality under section 13, not having been set aside by a proper appeal or revision, it could not be avoided by recourse to section 7 of the Act for which no overriding jurisdiction can be claimed although it empowers a Rehabilitation Commissioner to make general or special orders not inconsistent with the Act, as he may consider necessary for the proper discharge of his functions. The legality of an order made by the Rehabilitation Commissioner for general revision of allotments in a Chak, in precisely the same circumstances, as done in the present case, came in for examination by this Court in the case of Abdul Hafiz v. Rehabilitation Commissioner and 4 others (P L D 1966 S C 483). In this case the orders of the Rehabilitation Commissioner for general revision of allotments in Chak No. 149/EB, Tehsil Pakpattan had been successfully challenged in the High Court, which quashed it in certiorari holding it as an invalid omnibus order. This Court reversed the orders of the High Court and held that the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner for general revision of allotments in a Chak was relatable to his powers under paragraph 73, Part I of the Settlement Scheme read with section 7 (1) of the Rehabilitation Ordinance No. 17 of 1956, being a special order made with a view to secure the proper implementation of the Scheme. It was further held that such an order also fell within the ambit of the power conferred on the Rehabilitation Commissioner by subsection (4) of section 11 of the Ordinance and that in the circumstances of the case a general collective notice to the persons affected without giving to each of them a separate individual notice, satisfied the requirements of the taw. The judgment of this Court cited above, which has proceeded on facts identical to the present case, and pertains to the neighbouring Chak in the same Tehsil of Pakpattin, furnishes a complete answer to the respondent's case. It may further be noted that no question of want of notice to the respondent arises in the present case, as the order by the Rehabilitation Commissioner was made in a review application brought by the respondent himself. Similarly the argument about the finality of the orders in his favour under section 13, is also unsustainable as the final orders by the Rehabilitation authorities in this case were made in favour of the appellants and not of the respondent. Following our judgment in the case of Abdul Hafiz v. Rehabilitation Commissioner and 4 others cited above, we must allow this appeal. The order of the Rehabilitation Commis sioner directing the general revision of the allotments and the subsequent orders passed by the Rehabilitation authorities in pursuance thereof in favour of the appellants are held to be valid and, therefore, restored. The Writ issued by the High Court is recalled. As the respondent has not appeared to contest this appeal, we do not burden him with costs. Appeal accepted.