1970 PLP 38 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑The dispute in‑ this case relates to a plot of agricultural land situated in Chak No. 52/2‑L, tehsil Okara, district Sahiwal This land was originally allotted to the petitioners but subsequently they were served with a notice under section 11. of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1950, to show cause as to why the excess area in their possession should not be cancelled. They showed cause but the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) on the 17th of September 1963, found that the petitioners were holding lands in excess of their entitle ment and ordered that the units of the petitioners should be re‑calculated and the excess‑ area ‑ taken away from them and allotted to the respondent No. 1 as an informer. Against this order the petitioner went up in appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner but the appeal was rejected on the ground that the order having been passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner as a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was not subject to further appeal. A revision against this order was also rejected on the same ground relying on a decision of this Court in the case of Jalal Din v. Mohd. Rafiq (P L D 1965 S C 261). The petitioners then invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution but the High Court has upheld the view taken by the Settlement Authorities and summarily dismissed the constitutional petition. The petitioners now seek special leave to appeal. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition urges that the views taken by the High Court and, the Settlement Authorities as to the competency of the appeal and the revision were wrong, because, under subsection. (2) of section 30 of the Act it was expressly provided that the Chief Settlement Commis sioner will have no power to delegate the: powers specified in Chapter VI of the Act which deals with appeals and revisions: It is on this basis argued that appeals and revisions were available even against orders exercised by Subordinate Authori ties as delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. This argument is clearly fallacious, as pointed out by the High Court, for, the appeal and revision referred to in Chapter VI are from orders passed by the appropriate authorities concerned in exercise of their ordinary functions assigned to them under section 9 of the Land Settlement Act. There is nothing in the Land Settlement Act to show that 'there can be an appeal or revision even from orders passed by the Settlement Authorities as delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. In: the circumstances, the principle enunciated by this Court in Jalal Din's case .was fully applicable and had been rightly applied. by the High Court and the Settlement . Authorities. There is, in our view, no substance in this petition' which is; accordingly, dismissed. Leave refused.