P L D 1967 Lahore 754 (PLP)

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the follow ing contentions .‑ (i) that the order of allotment passed by the Deputy Rehabi litation Commissioner in the year 1952 could not be reviewed by another Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner on 3rd February 1962 ; (ii) that the provisions of section 11. of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, would not apply, as it was not a case of fraud; (iii) that the order of Officer Incharge, Central Record Room verifying Fard Haqiat offends the principles of natural justice as it has taken away the vasted rights of the petitioner. Reference had to be made to the Rehabilitation Commissioner under paragraph 19 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, 1952. Even if Fard Haqiar was validly revised, the case is not covered under paragraphs 31 and 37 of the Scheme; and (iv) that the land was actually withdrawn from the petitioner on 26th May 1962, when it was allotted to the respondents and not on 3rd February 1962, when the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner passed the order. As such, the option to purchase the land could be exercised by the petitioner.

6. Regarding the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no doubt that under the Rehabili anon Act, 1956, another Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner could not pass an order of review on 3rd February 1962. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Tufail v. Abdul Ghafoor and others (P L D 1958 S C 201).

7. Regarding the second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, although the Deputy Rehabilitation Commis sioner has passed the order in 1962 but obviously the order of cancellation of allotment has been passed under section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. These powers are to be exercised by the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioners as delegatees of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. The question is whether the order cancelling the land was in conformity .with the provisions of law. Powers under section 11(t) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, were conferred on the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner in the case of irregular mutations wrong classification of soil, allotment in excess of entitlement etc. As it is mentioned on page 63 of the file in the order of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner attached with the report sent by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Jhang. So this officer was competent to look into the excess entitlement of the petitioner. The question is whether he had exercised jurisdiction according to law. It was mentioned in the order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 3rd February 1962, which was based on the report of the Central Record Room dated 1st September 1960, that the area verified on claim form No. 16 for village Qabulpur was correct but the area for village Manda should have been as under: Proprietary Ghair 142 Bigas 14 Biswas Zer Kabaa Maurusian 32 Bigas 4 Biswas Khairati son of Piroo Ghair Maurusi over 12 years. It was reported by the Central Record Room that she was not entitled to get allotment of 32 Bigas 4 Biswas of land on this claim form. It is obvious that the learned Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner while acting as delegatee of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner has based his finding on the report of the Central Record Room. He has relied upon paragraph 31 (vi) and 31 (vii) of the Scheme which are reproduced as under: Para. 31 (vi).‑"Muslim landlords of non‑Muslim occupancy tenants in the prescribed territory of India under section 5 (1) (a) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, will not be entitled to any compensation and the rest will be entitled to land corresponding in value to fifty per cent of their holdings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (vii) Muslim landlords of Muslim occupancy tenants in the prescribed territory of India should be given the same rights as Muslim landlords of the non‑Muslim occupancy tenants in the prescribed territory. (Reference former Punjab Government Press Note, dated 30th August 1952 and memorandum No. 490‑R (L), dated 26th January 1953)." Paragraph 37 of the Scheme is also reproduced as under:‑ Para. 37.‑`The competent Rehabilitation Authority should give rights under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, to the refugee tenants‑at‑will mentioned at item (i) of the following categories of the Tenancy Act and rights to the tenants falling under the remaining categories according to the scale prescribed for occupancy tenants under sections 6 and 8 of the Tenancy Act:‑ (i) those who paid nothing more than land revenue, rates and cesses, (ii) . . . . . . . . . . . . (iii) . . . . . . . . . . . . (iv) . . . . . . . . . . . . The provisions of paragraph 37 will be attracted in favour of the refugee tenants‑at‑will of the Alwar and Bharatpur States, who are holding for 12 years or more for confirment on them occupancy rights under section 5 (i) (a) of the Tenancy Act, if the tenants were paying nothing more than the land revenue, rates and cesses. The Fard Haqiat issued by the Central Record Room does not show that the tenants‑at‑will were not paying anything to the landlords and unless this was proved which could only be done by adducing evidence by the parties for which opportunity has not been given to the petitioner by the authorities of the Central Record Room, who re-verified the Fard Haqiat without hearing the petitioner. The Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner had merely acted on their finding. There is considerable force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this order was without lawful authority, even if it was passed by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner as delegatee of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner under section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958.

8. Regarding the third submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the Central Record Room Authorities have illegally re-verified the Fard Haqiat of the petitioner condemning her unheard. However, para 29 of the Rehabilitation Scheme deals with the verification in this classification of the soil which is not the case in the present petition. Para. 29 is reproduced as under:‑ Para.29.‑"Rights under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme should be given to a claimant in accordance with the entries in the special jamabandis received from the prescribed areas of India. Classification of evacuee land should be taken into account according to the entries in the special jamabandis prepared for exchange with India and subsequent variations in the classification of soil should be ignored. If any hardship is caused by the application of this rule in individual cases a reference should be made to the Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan (Reference former Punjab Government memorandum No. 8553‑R (L), dated 2nd September 1950)." Reference to the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis sioner could be made if it was a case of classification of soil. In the instant case the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner was acting as delegatee of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, and as such he could pass an order without referring the matter to the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner.

9. On the last point raised, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being a lady did not like to involve herself in unnecessary litigation and chose the lesser evil to purchase land in view of the notification of the Central Government dated 18th May 1962, referred to above. This she could exercise by 31st August 1962, which period was subsequently extended. She exercised the option to purchase on 10th June 1962. Learned counsel for the respondents objected to it on the ground that benefit of these instructions would not accrue to the petitioner as the land was withdrawn from her before 11th April 1962. No doubt, the order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner was passed on 3rd February 1962, but the land was withdrawn from the petitioner on the day when it was allotted to the respondents by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner on 26th May 1962. In my humble opinion, the benefit of the memo referred to above is available to the petitioner as the land was withdrawn from her on the day when its allotment was made in the names of respondents on 26th May 1962. But there is considerable force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that once the Deputy Settle ment and Rehabilitation Commissioner had exercised powers as delegatee of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, he could not subsequently review his own order because the powers of review had not been delegated to him by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. He relied on Mirza Muhammad Yaqub v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, and another (P L D 1965 S C 254) in support of his contention. Therefore, the order of the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner giving the petitioner the benefit to purchase this land cannot remain in the field. As a result of the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent, the orders passed by the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner disappear because none of these officers could hear review, appeal or revision against the order of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. This fact I have already observed that the order of the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner was as a delegatee of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents then lastly submitted that since the petitioner had given up her challenge to the order of cancellation of her land and had exercised the right of option to purchase, she had abandoned her claim before the subordinate Settlement Authorities, therefore, she cannot challenge the order of cancellation of her land in this Court. I am afraid I cannot agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. The order passed by the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner as delegatee of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner was based on the finding of the Central Record Room and the Deputy Settlement and Rehabi litation Commissioner himself did not adjudicate the rights of the petitioner. The findings arrived at by the Central Record Room were passed in the absence of the petitioner. She was, therefore, condemned unheard. I, therefore, quash the orders of the Central Record Room, the Deputy Settlement and Rehabilita tion Commissioner dated 3rd February 1962, and all subsequent orders passed by the Settlement Authorities and direct the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner to send the case of the petitioner to the officer to whom the powers of Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner have been delegated under section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, to consider afresh the entitlement of the petitioner for the land she had abandoned in Alwar State, after giving her an opportunity to prove her entitlement, and to allow her the benefit of the memo. issued by him, authorising the purchase of excess land on payment of Rs. 10 per unit in case she fails to establish her right of allotment. In view of the circumstances of the case I do not pass any order as to costs: A. H. Order accordingly.