' This validity of the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 8-12-1976 is called in question in this Constitution petition.
2. A few facts necessary for the disposal of this petition arc; that one Noor Din migrated from Bekanair. His claim bearing No,6228 was issued to one Siraj Din acting as an attorney of Mst. Hajran.
This happened on 27-11-1956. After the demise of Noor Din, mutation of inheritance was attested in favour of Mst. Hajran (herein respondent), who was recorded to be daughter of Mst. Jewni--the real sister of Noor Din-right-holder.
3. By means of RL. II No,155 the agricultural land measuring 128 kanals in Chak No,94/P, Tehsil Rahimyarkhan was confirmed in lieu of this claim. It was on 7-3-1961 when Ilam Din and others lodged information against allotment in favour of Mst. Rashida Bibi, Mst. Sakina Bibi and 16 others to the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Rahimyarkhan. A complaint was also given to the Director Enforcement for taking action against Sultan Ahmed and others. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land), Rahimyarkhan in pursuance of this information passed order dated 18-5- 1962, by which he cancelled confirmation in favour of Noor Din. Mst. Hajran unsuccessfully challenged this order before the Settlement Commissioner by filing appeal which was dismissed on 24-7-1964. Feeling aggrieved, Mst.Hajran impeached these orders by filing Constitution petition, which was accepted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by means of order dated 29-11- 1973. The case was remanded to the Settlement Commissioner, Bahawalpur to decide the appeal of Mst. Hajran afresh in accordance with law. In pursuance of this order, the Settlement Commissioner accepted the appeal of Mst. Hajran and set aside the order of the Deputy Settlement/Rehabilitation, Commissioner dated 18-5-1962.
4. In disputing the correctness/legality of the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner raised following points:--
(i) It was submitted that one Ellahi Bakhsh son of Nathu stated in his affidavit dated 18-8-1961 that he was the nephew of Noor Din; that Noor Din was still alive in India; that Mst. Jewani was not the sister of Noor Din. On the basis of these facts, it was argued that the confirmation in favour of Noor Din and the mutation of inheritance in favour of Mst. Hajran was incorrect, illegal and merited to be set aside.
(ii) Even if it is assumed that Noor Din had come to Pakistan, it was clear that Ellahi Bakhsh was his nephew and Mst. Hajran was entitled only to the extent of share of Mst. Jewani and that the rest of the share would revert to compensation pool which must be allotted to Iqbal Khan informer who was the owner of unsatisfied claim.
(iii) That Mst. Hajran had filed claim which was not verified by the Central Record Room. On the basis of these facts it was contended that confirmation in favour of Noor Din and mutation of inheritance in favour of Mst. Hajran was thoroughly illegal and the respondent could not be permitted to retain ill-gotten claims in lieu of fake claim of Noor Din. Reliance was placed on Mst.
Bhano and another v Mian A.M. Saeed and others (1969 SCMR 299), Begum Shams-un-Nisa v.
Said Akbar Abbasia and another (PLD 1982 SC 413), Umar Din v. Syed Muhammad Abdul Aziz Sharqi and others (PLD 1985 SC 265) Sheikh Muhammad Amin v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Pakistan Lahore and another (!987 SCMR 56).
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent raised following points in reply:-
(i) It was contended that Iqbal Ahmed Khan was not informer. He did not lodge any application under Section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act XLVII of 1958) before Ist of July, 1974 when the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) (XLVII of 1958) was repealed under Evacuee Properties and Displaced Persons Laws Repeal Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act (XIV of 1975). According to the learned counsel, in view of aforesaid fact, the petitioner had no locus standi to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
(ii) Secondly, it was argued that the contention of the petitioner was to the effect that Noor Din was still in India, had not migrated to Pakistan and so was not right-holder. No objection was taken with respect to genuineness of the claim. It was argued that this controversy was wholly outside the jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities under sections 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XIV of 1975) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Reliance was placed on Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others (PLD 1975 SC 331) and Muhammad Yaqoob Khan and others v. Nazar Khan and others (1983 SCMR 1252).
(iii) It was lastly contended that even otherwise on merit there was no substance/material/evidence produced by the petitioner demonstrating that Noor Din had not come to Pakistan; that Mst. Jewani was not his sister. Reliance was placed only on the affidavit of Ellahi Bakhsh before the Magistrate. Neither Ellahi Bakhsh was produced before Deputy Settlement Commissioner nor he was produced before the Settlement Commissioner.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the record with their help. The following points emerge for consideration from the contentions of the parties:-
(i) Whether the Settlement Authorities under section 10/11 of the Act have power to examine the question as to "whether Noor Din had migrated from India to Pakistan as a refugee and allotment obtained in lieu of his claim was valid or not.
(ii) Whether the order of the Settlement Commissioner was open to exception regarding his finding that the informer had failed to establish that Noor Din had not come to Pakistan and that the confirmation in favour of the respondent was null and void.
(iii) Whether Mst. Hajran was only entitled to the confirmation to the extent of right of Mst. Jewani being sister of Noor Din and the remaining land in disputh was the part of compensation pool and was capable of allotment to the petitioner.
8. Having set down the facts, the points of the parties and the finding of the Settlement Commissioner, I herein proceed to determine these contentions. As already noted above, the genuineness of the claim was neither disputed before the subordinate authorities nor before this Court. The only question raised was that Noor Din had not come to Pakistan and so confirmation obtained in lieu of his claim was null and void. Similar question came up for consideration in Muhamad Yaqoob and others v. Nazar Khan and others (1983 SCMR 1252). In this case the point raised before the Settlement Commissioner in information application was that Jaurey Khan the original right-holder had not come to Pakistan. This point was repelled by the Supreme Court in following words:- "After hearing the learned counsel at length, however, we find no force in any of the contentions.
The findings arrived at by the learned Judge in the High Court are supported by the decision of this Court in Officer on Special Duty v. Bashir Ahmad (1977 SCMR 208) which has been referred to and relied upon. We further feel that the case advanced before the Settlement Commissioner in the application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act being that Jaurey Khan had died in India would seem to relate to the registration of the claim under the Registration of Claims (Displaced) Persons Act, 1956 and consequently the Settlement Authorities would be incompetent to deal with the question of fraud committed upon the officers of the Claims Organization, under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act. In the circumstances and for reasons assigned by the High Court, there is attached no finality to the findings recorded by the Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 19-9-1975 so as to oust the Constitutional jurisdiction."
9. It is apparent from the record that the facts of the case are not much ii dispute. The genuineness of the claim of Noor Din is not contested. Thy petitioner had not produced any evidence before the Deput: Settlement/Rehabilitation Commissioner. He did not produce any evidence before the Settlement Commissioner. The entire reliance was placed upon the affidavit of one Ellahi Bakhsh who stated in the affidavit sworn before the Magistrate, Ist Class, Rahim yar khan on 18-8-1964 to the effect that Noor Din was in India and was in possession of his land and that he has no sister named MsI Jewani.
10. Seen from the aforenoted background, I have no difficulty in coming to0 the conclusion that the Settlement Authorities were not competent to examinr that Noor Din had not come to Pakistan and so confirmation obtained in lieu o his claim was illegal. This point entirely lay within the domain of Claim Organisation.
11. Having disposed of the first two questions, I proceed to examine the third one. The reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner of the statement of Ellahi Bakhsh. It is quite clear that Ellahi Bakhsh neither appeared before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner nor before the Settlement Commissioner. His statement was not recorded in the presence of the parties The respondent had no opportunity to cross-examine the said witness. No doubt the proceedings under sections 10 and 11 of the Act are not judicial in nature ye they are quasi-judicial in nature. It is a settled principle of law that in such proceedings the elementary principles of natural justice must be observed. I have therefore, no doubt in my mind that the Settlement Commissioner was completely justified in not placing the reliance upon such affidavit. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is found to be without an: merit on this question.
12. Even otherwise the petitioner has failed to establish that he lodged an information under sections 10 and 11 of the Act before the Deputy Settlement,. Commissioner before Ist of July, 1974. In result, confirmation in favour of the respondent has attained finality and is immune from such attacks.
13. In the light of foregoing analysis, I do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was/is in .