1. MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-The question of law arising in this appeal by special leave is whether section 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 (Act XLVII of 1958) which empowers the Chief Settlement Commissioner inter alia to cancel the allotment of agricultural land, is controlled by section 19 of the Act which by subsection (1) conferred upon the Chief Settlement Commissioner power of suo motu revision to be exercised within a time limit ?
2. The facts giving rise to the above question are that in satisfaction of his urban land claim, Syed Takreem Hussain, respondent No. 2 herein was confirmed on 20-4-1960, certain area situate within Naulakha revenue estate in the limits of Lahore Municipal Corporation, including the area in dispute measuring 1 kanal 18 marlas and 80 s.Ft. Comprising Khasra Nos. 5521, 3298, 5522/3497, 5523/3296 (hereinafter called the area in dispute). The allotment purported to be under Supplementary Scheme No. II (hereinafter to be referred as the Scheme). Syed Takreem Hussain later sold the area in dispute to the appellants herein.
3. A number of persons ipcluding Furqan Ahmad respondent No. 3 herein, prior to the confirmation of the allotment in favour of Syed Takreem Hussain, had severally applied on their respective CH, NCH and LG forms for the transfer of different portions of the area in dispute treating it as transferable under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (Act XXVIII of 1958) on the ground that the premises applied for in each case were either building site or a building and not land within the meaning of the Scheme. A portion out of the area in dispute was accordingly transferred to respondent No. 3. A P. T. O. Was issued in his favour on 14-4-1960. On 28-3-1961, he filed a revision before the Settlement Commissioner against the confirmation of allotment of the land in dispute in favour of respondent No. 2, on the ground that the area in dispute was a building site and, therefore, not land within the meaning of the Scheme, and, its allotment in favour of respondent No. 2 in satisfaction of his urban land claim was illegal. The Settlement Commissioner, vide order dated 8-1-1963, dismissed the revision as barred by limitation. He, however, observed that the area in dispute was described in the latest revenue record either as shop or `Qabil-e- Ta'meer', and, therefore. Not being agricultural land, was excluded from allotment vide clause (c) of paragraph 5 of the Scheme. He, therefore, forwarded the case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner se that he ,night consider the cancella--petition of the allotment in favour of respondent No. 2 under section 11 of Act XLVII of 1958. The Chief Settlement Cnn,missinner, after examining for himself the relevant record in a well-considered order; agreed with the Settlement Commissioner that the area ar. Disp;itc was not land for purposes of the Scheme, and, therefore, could not have been allotted to respondent No. 2 satisfaction of his urban land claim. On the basis of this finding, the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner in exercise of his powers under section 11 and subsection (1) of section 19 of Act XLVII of 1958, cancelled the allotment in favour of respondent No. 2.
4. Aggrieved by the above order, the appellants herein filed a revision under section 21 of Act XLVII of 195&, before the High Court which was dismissed by a Division Bench by order dated 19-5-1967 It may be observed at the outset that the finding of the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner that the area in dispute is a building site on which a number of shops existed is unexceptionable and is not seriously challenged on behalf of the appellants. The area in dispute was described in the Jamabandi either as shop or Qabil-e-Ta'meer (building site) and there is nothing whatever, to show that it was under plough at the relevant time.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants however, argued that the area in dispute was confirmed as land in favour of respondent No. 2 on 28-4-1960, and the order of confirmation could not have been revised by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in exercise of his suo motu jurisdiction under subsection (1) of section 19 of Act XLVII of 1958, after a period of nine months from the date of the confirmation. The further argument was that once it is held that it was not open to the Chief Settlement Com--missioner to vary or set aside the confirmed allotment in favour of respondent No. 2, under subsection (1) of section 19 of Act XLVII of 1958 (since omitted by Ordinance XIII of 1964), the Chief Settlement Commissioner also lost his power to cancel the allotment under section 11 of the Act, because power under that section was "subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder" which according to the learned counsel included subsection (1) of section 19 of the Act, which prescribed a limitation of 9 months for the exercise of suo motu jurisdiction by the Chief Settlement Commissioner.
6. The argument in our opinion is without substance. It rests on the erro--neous assumption that the jurisdiction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 11 is assimilable to his revisional jurisdiction under sec--petition 19(1) of the Act. Section 11 occurs in Chapter IV of the Act, beginning with section 9 which creates a hierarchy of various Settlement Authorities with the Chief Settlement Commissioner at the apex. Section 1 gives plenary power to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to cancel o to reduce an allotment when he is satisfied that the allotment has bee obtained by "fraud or false representation". Exercise of power under this section is not subject to any period of limitation. Section 11 give analogous but wider power to cancel or terminate an allotment or a lease made under a Scheme or under this Act. Power exercisable under this section is not hedged by any condition except that an allotment or lease can be cancelled or terminated for reasons to be stated in writing. It is important to observe that under this section, power of cancellation or termination is to be exercised otherwise than for reasons of fraud or misrepresenation and is available both in respect of allotments and leases. Under subsec--petition (2) ibid, the allottee whose allotment or a lessee whose lease has been cancelled is required to surrender the possession to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, or any person authorised by him in that behalf.
7. In the event of his refusal so to do, subsection (3) ibid empowers the Chief Settlement Commissioner to eject the person concerned by the use of minimum force. Thus it will be seen that this section provides a complete code for the cancellation of allotment or termination of lease by the Chief Settlement Commissioner.
8. Section 19 on the other hand occurs in Chapter VI which contain provisions relating to appeals, revision and review including the power of revision by the High Court under section 21 of the Act, which like the suo motu revisional power of the Chief Settlement Commissioner lies on a law point only. There is no such qualification or limitation in respect of cases falling to be dealt with under section 11. Therefore, in our opinion it is plain that the provisions of sections 11 and 19 deal with distinct matters. The words "subject to the other provisions of this Act" in section 11 merely connote the fact that an order made by the Chief Settlement Commissioner under section 11 is not final but is subject to the incidence of revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 21, which in the instant case, the appellants also unsuccessfully invoked. Sections 10 and 11 are in pari materia and having regard to their provisions, in our opinion the Legislature advisedly did not make their operation subject to any period of limitation.
9. It may incidentally be also pointed out, that section 16 of the Act, which after its amendment by Ordinance XIII of 1964, confers absolute ownership in land after its permanent settlement under the Act or the Scheme, does not avail to respondent No. 2 or the transferees from him, the appellants herein, because the allotment in favour of respondent No. 2 was cancelled by the Chief Settlement Commissioner long before section 16 was amended to vest absolute right of ownership on the persons concerned.
10. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss this appeal, but with no order as to costs.