This writ petition is directed against the order of an Assistant Commissioner who dismissed the petitioner's application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 which was transferred to his file by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Sialkot. The application was dismissed for default and for lack of proof.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. The crucial question involved in this case is whether the Assistant Commissioner, Pasrur who passed impugned order was ever possessed of delegated powers under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 before its repeal or was a notified officer under the repealing Act XIV of 1975 to deal with such cases.
4. The learned counsel have given me the assistance to trace out the notification appearing at page 28 of the Punjab Statutes reported in PLD 1975 Provincial Statutes. It is dated the 16th November, 1974. Item No,5 of the Schedule annexed to this notification has empowered the Additional. Deputy Commissioner, Extra Assistant Settlement Officers and Extra Assistant Colonization Officers to dispose of the proceedings which were pending since before the repeal of the Act before Additional Settlement Commissioner with the delegated powers under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 for the respective districts. Assistant Commissioners appear at item No,7 and they have only been given the powers of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Deputy Claims Commissioner and Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner in the Sub-Division on the land side only.
5. It is thus patently clear that the Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Sialkot could be seized of the case either in his capacity as a delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, or as a notified officer authorised to deal with such category of pending cases. In either case, he was wholly incompetent to confer his powers on an Assistant Commissioner. It is well-settled that a delegated power cannot be further delegated unless it is so authorised by the statute. There is no such provisions to be found in either the repealing Ordinance, 1974 or Act XIV of 1975 authorising such a course. The Assistant Commissioner, Pasrur, therefore, totally lacked jurisdiction in the matter.
6. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondents state that since this is an old matter a direction be issued to the notified officer to dispose it of within the next four months. I find merit in the submission.
7. I have purposefully refrained from making any comment on the merits since the matter is to be decided afresh by an authorised notified officer. It is for the parties to produce before the notified officer the case-law which they wish to cite before me.
8. The writ petition is accordingly accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded for disposal by an appropriate notified officer within four months after hearing the parties. It will be for the parties to raise whatever pleas are available to them both on point of fact as well as law in the remand proceedings. However, in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.