1968 SCMR 126 (PLP)

S. A. RAHMAN, J.-Allotment of the petitioner, Ramzan, was partially cancelled by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the ground that excessive allotment of land had been made to him. He challenged the order of the departmental authorities, by a petition under Article 93 of the Constitution. A Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan dismissed the petition on the ground that the impugned order was passed by an officer who had jurisdiction in the matter. The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal from the order of the High Court. It appears that the allotment of the land 'was finally made to the petitioner under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme of 1950, promulgated by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, Punjab. This Scheme is set out at page 383 et seq of the Manual relating to Evacuee Properties Laws. Section 23 of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act (XVII) of 1956 provides that an order passed under any previous law on the subject would be deemed to have been passed under the Act, so far as may be. The Scheme framed -in the Punjab under the old enactment would, therefore, be referable to the relevant provision of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act (XVII) of 1956. In the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 the term 'Scheme' is defined as one framed under the Rehabilitation Act of 1956. Reading these provisions together, it A would appear that the allotment must be deemed to fall within the purview of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and excess allotment, if any, could have been cancelled under section 11 of this Act. This power was exercisable by the Chief Settlement Commissioner or his delegate. The cancellation of the alleged excess allotment was, in the present case, ordered by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner as delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. It is contended by Mr. A. R. Shaukat that such an order by a delegate, was not susceptible of inter ference in appeal or revision at all. On appeal, the Additional Settlement Commissioner increased the alleged excess allotment from 6 units to 271 units and a revision petition, preferred by the petitioner from that order, was rejected by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The orders passed by these two officers are challenged as unlawful in these circunistances. The point appears to us to merit consideration. Rana Abdul Rahim, who appears before us for respondents Nos. 4 and 5, suggested that it was the Additional Settlement Commissioner and not the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who was the delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner for the B purposes of section I l of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. He invited our attention to Notification No. 4501- 03/5361-R(L)t dated the 3rd September 1963, which apparently, delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner t Additional Deputy Commissioner as Additional Sauk:own Commissioners. But Mr. A. R. Shaukat relied on an earli Notification dated the 3rd February 1960, which had conferre similar powers on Deputy Commissioners as Deputy Settlemen Commissioners, under section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Lan Settlement) Act, 1958. It is not shown that that earlier Notifica tion had ever been superseded by a subsequent one. The pain raised therefore, on behalf of the petitioner, prima Jack, is a valid one. We grant leave to appeal to consider this point. The petitioner will furnish security in the sum of Rs. 1,000 as costs prior to the appeal being heard. In the meantime the possession of the petitioner except for the six units found as excess by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, will not be disturbed. Petition allowed.