1975 PLP 197 (SCMR)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑‑The petitioners in this case are claimants it respect of urban lands abandoned by them in India. They were temporarily allotted some lands within urban limits in Pakistan. Subsequently in 1963 under Settlement Scheme No. I and Supplementary Settlement Scheme No. 2, the Government as a matter of general policy decided to permanently settle displaced persons holding temporary allotments of urban agricultural lands in these places. No permanent allotment was, however, made because the Chief Settlement Commissioner by a notifica tion issued in 1969 under section 2(3)(b) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, declared such lands within Municipal limits as build ing sites. This notification was challenged. Therefore it was cancelled and a subsequent notification was issued on the 16th May 1973, under the same provisions of law declaring all urban lands within Municipal areas throughout Punjab as building sites. The petitioners sought to challenge this notification by a writ petition in the Lahore High Court and so did several other persons by filing similar petitions. All these petitions were heard together by a single Judge of the Lahore High Court who dismissed the writ petitions on the 19th December 1974, holding that the notification of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was a valid and legal notification. The petitioners have come up for special leave to appeal and it is con tended on their behalf that the use of the words 'a building site' in clause (b) of the aforesaid subsection (3) of section 2 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, clearly means that each individual holding must be considered independently. Therefore, no general notification can be validly made under these provisions. We are unable to accept this contention, because, it is a well recognised rule of interpretation that the singular in a statute also includes the plural. Therefore, there can be no bar to a number of evacuee lands situated at various places being declared building sites by a comprehensive notification. There is nothing in the Act to preclude the Chief Settlement Commissioner from making such a notification. This Court has already held in a number of cases that even a general order by the Chief Settlement Commissioner is valid under the Settlement law. Learned counsel next contends that after the acquisition of evacuee properties no such notification could be issued. There is no substance in this contention. An evacuee property does not change its character by acquisition. It is only after the acquisition that the property come into the compensation pool and becomes distributable amongst claimants‑allottees. In fact the provisions of the Land Settlement Act enabling the Chief Settlement Commissioner to allot these lands become applicable only after such evacuee lands have been acquired by the Central Government. It is lastly contended that since this notification was issued without giving the petitioners any notice or hearing it violated the principles of natural justice. This contention is not correct. For the purpose of deciding whether a land can be declared to be a building site or not it is not necessary that a person, who may be in possession of such land must be heard. None of the contentions raised by the learned counsel are tenable. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.