1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 30-11-1972 passed in Civil Revision No. 51 of 1971 under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958.
2. The facts, briefly stated, are that Muhammad Abdul Rahim and Jamal--ud-Din, two brothers, predecessors-in-interest of the appellants before us, abandoned immovable property including agricultural land in Mehroli (Delhi). In 1959, Muhammad Abdur Rahim, filed a claim form under the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956. He claimed, inter alta, 300 bighas of land under Scheme IV. Claim under Schedules 1, V and VI was verified for an amount of Rs. 3,672 by orders of the Claims Officer, Peshawar, dated 14th September 1959. The claim in regard to the landed property under Schedule IV was separated, its value being over one lac of rupees it was to be verified under section 5-A of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Ordinance, 1955, by the Deputy Claims -Commissioner. The Deputy Claims Commissioner, it appears, referred the matter to the Addl. Claims Commis--sioner (Admn.), Lahore, who confirmed the order of the Claims Officer verifying the claim in Schedules I and VI and also impleaded Jamal-ud-Din, the other brother, as co-claimant with Muhammad Abdur Rahim. The claim under Schedule IV was referred to the Central Record Office as it pertained to the agricultural land abandoned in the Agreed Area. The Central Record Office, however, sent it back to the Additional Claims Commissioner observing that "Khasra No. Of the urban land situated in Delhi has not been received from India". The Additional Claims Commissioner, therefore, referred the claim in regard to Schedule IV to the Deputy Claims Commissioner for verification according to the procedure adopted in the case of verification of claims of Non---Agreed Areas. Reference was also made to a Circular Letter No. ROC(6)/3168 dated 3rd March 1960, by which the verifying officers had been authorised to verify such claims by supplementary orders. The Deputy Claims Commis--sioner, therefore, by his order dated 14-3-1960, verified the claim under Schedule IV for 18.72 acres.
3. Pursuant to this the petitioners, or for that matter their predecessors, were allotted agricultural land in the district of Peshawar. No attempt was made from any quarter to question the order of verification except that the Enforcement Staff referred the matter to the District Judge, Hazara/Settlement Commissioner, but the proceedings were dropped after the withdrawal of the powers of the Settlement Commissioner from the District Judges in 1965.
4. Sometimes later the respondent Abdul Wahid addressed an application to the Governor of West Pakistan that the claim form submitted by the two claimants was bogus. This application was forwarded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, by the Governor's Secretariat vide S. O. R.
5. 18305 dated 18-1-1968, for "personal hearing and favourable consideration". The Chief Settlement Commissioner took cognizance in the matter and examined some witnesses. He, however, transferred the matter to the Deputy Commissioner, Peshawar, exercising powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under sections 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 26-2-1970 set aside the order of verification of the Deputy Claims Commissioner dated 14-3-1963 and ordered the cancellation of the allotment made pursuant thereto, observing : "The result is that I accept the miscellaneous revision petition in exercise of the delegated powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, set aside the land verification order of the Deputy Claims Commissioner dated 14-3-1960 and order that land allotted to respondents in lieu of this claim shall revert back to the settle--ment pool." He also directed that while making fresh allotments the respon--dent Abdul Wahid be given preference in regard to the allotment of land thus cancelled.
6. The petitioners being aggrieved of the above order filed a revision petition under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) .Act, 1958, before the Peshawar High Court. The order of the Deputy Commissioner was assailed, inter alia, on the ground that since the claim in Schedule IV was verified by the Deputy Claims Commissioner under the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956, the Deputy Commissioner as delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was not competent to annul the verification order. It was further urged that even the Claims Commissioner could have revised such an order within the "prescribed period", which meant before the 31st day of March 1965. The order of verification, accordingly, could not, therefore, have been revised on a date after the 31st March 1965, by any authority, much less the delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958.
7. The learned Judges of the High Court found force in the last mentioned contention observing that the order dated 26-2-1970 of the Deputy Commis--sioner was indeed without jurisdiction. Effect, however, was not given to this contention because the learned Judges felt that the order of the Deputy Claims Commissioner dated 14-4-1960, relied upon by the petitioner herein, was itself a void order, inter alia, on the ground that subsection (3) of section 2 of the Act barred verifications of claims by an authority under the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 in respect of agricultural land abandoned in Delhi. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court against the said decision to consider the question whether section 2(3) of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956 had been correctly construed inasmuch as the question whether the said provision of law would apply only to claims in respect of land lying outside the municipal limits and not to all kinds of property left in India, required further consideration.
8. At the hearing of the appeal the question arose before us whether the High Court could have entertained a revision under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 against the order dated 26-2-1970 of the Deputy Commissioner, acting as a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commis--sioner, whereby he set aside the order of verification passed by the Deputy Claims Commissioner dated 14-3-1960. The learned counsel for the appellant maintained that the Deputy Commissioner assumed jurisdiction as a delegate of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under sections 10/11 of the Act and as such the order was revisable by a Division Bench of the High Court under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. His submission was that the said order was not passed under the Registration of Claims Act, but under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. Hence it was revis--able under the provisions of the said Act. The argument was that only because the Deputy Commissioner had set aside the order of the Deputy Claims Commissioner passed under the Registration of Claims Act, this would not tantamount to holding that he was also exercising power under that Act. It is one thing to say that he has no jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the authority under the Registration of Claims Act, 1956 and quite another to contend that he wrongly assumed jurisdiction under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. In the alternative it was prayed that this Court may convert this application into a writ petition and agreed to make up the deficiency in the court-fee and, in fact, he has deposited the requisite court--fee at his own risk.
9. After giving this aspect of the matter my full consideration I have reached the conclusion that the revision under section 21 of the Displaced Person (Land Settlement) Act was competent. The Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 26-2-1970 professedly as a delegate of the Chief Settle--ment Commissioner under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. As he purported to be acting under the provisions of the Displaced person (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the remedy provided under that law for revisions such an order could be invoked. I would accordingly hold that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was revisable by the High Court under section 21 of the Act.
10. Turning to the merits, I am of the view that this appeal must succeed as the construction placed by the High Court on the provisions of section 2(3) of the Registration of Claims Act is not tenable. This would appear from a close reading of section 2 (2) and section 2(3) of the said Act.
11. 'Property has been defined in subsection (2) of section 2 and means;
(a) any immovable property situated within the limits of a Corporation, a Municipal Committee, a Notified Area Committee, a Town Area Committee, a Small Town Committee, a Sanitary Committee and a Cantonment as these limits existed on the 15th August 1947 ;
(b) --------------------
(c) land situated outside the limits referred to in clause (a) above and occupied or let for agricultural purposes or for purposes subservient to agriculture or for pasture including-
(i) the sites of buildings and other agricultures on such land ;
(ii) a share in the profits of an estate or holding ;
(iii) any dues or any fixed percentage of land revenue payable by an inferior landowner to a superior landowner ;
(iv) a right to receive rent ; and
(v) any right of occupancy ;
(d) substantial houses, shops and godowns outside the limits referred to in clause (a) above, provided their present value in each case is not less than rupees ten thousand ; and
(e) any other property or class of property which the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare to be property for the purposes of this Act.
12. According to clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 2 every kind of immovable property, whether land or otherwise, within the limits of a Cor--poration, etc. Is 'property'. Similarly under clause (c) land situated outside the limits of a Corporation, etc., referred to in clause (a) is also property.
13. Housee, shops, godowns, etc. Situated outside the limits of Municipality can, in view of the provisions of clause (d) supra, be included in the definition of property only if the value thereof is more than Rs. 10,000.
14. Subsection (3) of section 2 is in the following terms : ----- "Claim" means the assertion of a right to the ownership of, or to any interest in, property which has been treated as evacuee property pr of which a displaced person has otherwise been deprived under any law for the time being in force in India or in any area occupied by India, except Assam, West Bengal, Tripura and Manipur, but excludes the assertion of any such right or interest in any land as defined in sub--clause (e) of clause (21 and situated within East Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Delhi, the Patiala and East Punjab States Union, and the States of Alwar, Bharatpur and Bikaner."
15. According to the above provision claim means assertion of a right to the ownership of, or to any interest in, 'property', but it excludes the assertion of any such right or interest in any land as defined in clause (c) of subsection (2) and situated within the East Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Delhi, the Patiala and East Punjab States Union, and the States of Alwar, Bharatpur and Bikaner.
16. These areas are described as "Agreed Areas".
17. Reference to clause (c), however, would show that land situate outside the limits of a Corporation, etc. Is 'property'. It, therefore, follows that a claim with regard to lands in the Agreed Areas and situate outside the Municipal limits cannot be filed under this Act unless such a property is declared to be 'property' by a notification of the Central Government under clause (e). However, under clause (a) even land situate within the Municipal limits is 'property' and can be verified under the Act and the excluding clause of subsection (3) of section 2 does not apply to it. In other words, there is no bar to verification of lands situate within municipal limits.
18. Reverting to the facts of the instant case the claim in Schedule IV was referred to the Central Record Office. This was returned by the Officer-on---Special Duty with the remarks that the Khasra numbers of the urban lands situate in Delhi had not been received from India and, therefore, the procedure provided for verification of claims under Schedule IV for Non-Agreed Areas may be adopted in the case. Reference was also made to a Circular Letter No. ROC (6)/3163, dated 3rd March 1960. In so far as this claim related to the property situate within the municipal limits of Mehroli (Delhi) it fell within the purview of clause (a) of section .2, reproduced above. As section 2
(3) of the Act bars only the claim for lands outside the municipal limits and not all kinds of property left in India, and the property in dispute was situate within the municipal limits of Delhi, the learned Judges in the High Court were quite wrong in holding that section 2(3) barred the verification of the instant property. In these circumstances, the learned Judges of the High Court went wrong in declaring that the order of 14-3-1960 was a nullity ab initio.
19. As to the other aspect, namely, whether the delegate of Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act could cancel the allotment made pursuant to an order of verification by a Claims Commissioner or Deputy Claims Commissioner, as the case may be, even the learned Judges in the High Curt found that such an order would be D without jurisdiction. The Claims Commissioner could not after 31-3-196 revise or review an order passed by any Claim authority, if the record had not been sent for before that date. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 26-2-1970 whereby he set aside the order of the Deputy Claim Commissioner was, therefore, without lawful authority.
20. I may now turn to the other ground taken in the judgment of the High Court for declaring the original order of verification dated 14-3-1960 as a nullity, namely, that there is no provision in law authorising the Additional Claims Commissioner to issue directions to the Deputy Claims Commissioner to pass supplementary orders in respect of claims already verified as also to verify the claims of properties abandoned in the "Agreed Areas" by following the procedure provided for the verification of claims of Non-Agreed Areas. In this connection reliance was, inter alia, placed on clause (10) of the instructions forbidding the scrutiny of verified claims by the Additional Claims Commis--sioner if an appeal in regard to the matter covered by it is subject-matter of a pending appeal.
21. I am afraid I cannot agree with the reasons given by the High Court for taking the above view.
22. Taking the last point first it may be observed that the circumstance that the Deputy Claims Commissioner was seized of the appeal was of no importance in the facts of this case, because the appeal pending before him was regarding the verification of claims in Schedules I and VI. The matter referred to by the Additional Claims Commissioner was in regard to the claims in Schedule IV, which had already been separated. The Deputy Claims Commissioner, moreover, in his order dated 14-3-1960 has referred to Circular Letter No. ROC (60)/3168 dated 3rd March 1960, authoris-- ing the officer to verify such claims by a supplementary order. Under clause (e) of subsection (2) of section 2, the Central Government may, by a notification in the official Gazette, declare any other property to be property for the purposes of this Act. Under this provision property even within the "Agreed Areas"' could be declared to be property and verified adopting a procedure prescribed for the verification of properties in the Non-Agreed Areas. Such instructions could be issued under clause (e), referred to above.
23. The over-all result is that this appeal must succeed. The order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 26-2-1970 is hereby set aside and that -of the Deputy Claims Commissioner dated 14-3-1960 restored. The allotment made to the appellants in pursuance of the said order shall also stand revived. The appeal is accepted, but the parties are left to bear their own costs.