1. SALAHUDDIN ARMED, J.-This appeal by special leave of this Court is from an order of a Division Bench of the then High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore Seat, dismissing the appellant's writ petition in limine.
2. The appellant is a transferee of a shop situated in Grain Market, Khanewal. On the basis of the taxation record the evaluation price of the shop was originally assessed at Ks. 81,600, and later it was reduced by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to Rs, 76,000. The appellant objected to the evaluation and the annual rental assessment was reduced from Rs. 1,800 per annum to Rs. 840 per annum and the appellant was duly apprised of this reduction by a letter of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated the 12th of December 1963. The reduction was based on an inquiry conducted through the Director of Excise and Taxation. The appellant was still not satisfied and he kept on making repeated representations and ultimately they were all rejected by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, although in the meantime the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner had recommended further reduction on the ground that comparable properties in the same locality carried lower assessm ent. The appellant failed to make the payment of the evaluation price and he was, accordingly, served with a notice on the 30th of August 1967, that his Provisional Transfer Order had been cancelled for such non-payment.
3. It was contended before the High Court, and the same has been repeated before us, that tha Chief Settlement Commissioner had erred in law in placing reliance on the assessment made by the Excise and Taxation Department inasmuch as under Paragraph 22-A of Settlement Scheme No. 1 the assessm ent had to be made by the Settlement Officers themselves after spot inspection if they were of the view that the assessm ent as entered in the taxation record for the year 1946 was disproportionately high. It has been argued that a particular procedure having been prescribed under Paragraph 22-A the Chief Settlement Commissioner was not authorised to pursue a different procedure, namely, having the matter inquired into by the Excise and Taxation Department.
4. Under Paragraph 22 of Settlement Scheme No. 1 framed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, ordinarily the rent of a property prevailing in 1946 as assessed under any of the immovable property tax laws has been fixed as the basis for determination of the rent. It is only where no such assessment has been made on or before 1946, that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner is authorized to determine the rent prevailing in that year in a particular manner. Under Paragraph 22-A(1) where the assessment made by the Government for 1946 under any of the immovable property tax laws and that made by the local body concerned for the same year is different the lesser of the two assessments is directed to be adopted. Paragraph 22-A(3) & (4) read as follows :- "22-A.-(3) Where the assessed rent of a property is disproportionately high as compared with the rent of other properties of the same nature in the same locality, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner may after inspecting the property submit a proposal to the Additional Settlement Commissioner for suitable reduction in the rent of such property. The Additional Settlement Commissioner may after personal inspection of the property concerned forward his recommendation to the Settlement Commissioner, West Pakistan, who may pass such order as he may deem necessary.
(4) Where the rent assessed for a whole town or the entire locality in a town is disproportionately high or disproportionately low as compared with the rent of similar properties in other towns or other localities, as the case may be, the Chief Settlement Commissioner may order fresh assessm ent to be made."
5. It does not appear that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner after having inspected the property ever submitted any proposal to the Additional Settlement Commissioner for reduction in the rent of the property in dispute as required under the aforesaid sub-Paragraph (3). It is only after the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has submitted a proposal to the Additional Settlement Commissioner that the latter may after personal inspection of the property forward his recommendation to the Settlement Commissioner who may pass such orders as he may deem necessary.
6. It appears that it is the appellant who is guilty of not following the procedure prescribed in sub- Paragraph (3) when he applied to the Additional Settlement Commissioner direct for reducing the price of the shop.
7. It was in these circumstances that the matter was referred by the Chief Settlement Commissioner to the Director of Excise and Taxation for a reasonable assessment of the property in dispute as prevailing in the year 1946 and upon receiving a report from the latter the price was reduced on the basis of gross rental value of Rs. 840 per annum instead of Rs. 2,040 per .Annum. The result was that the price was reduced from Rs. 76,000 to Rs. 33,000.
8. The shop in dispute is a double storeyed one and the municipal ,assessment for the upper storey of the shop was Rs. 100 per annum while that that of the shop on the ground floor was Rs. 1,800 per annum. It appears that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had at first refused to transfer the shop to the appellant upon the latter's refusal to accept the price. Ultimately on the 8th of April 1960, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner --transferred the entire shop to the appellant at a total price of Rs. 76,000 i.e. Rs. 4,000 for the upper portion and Rs. 72,000 for the ground floor shop, .And accordingly two appendices were issued for the upper and the ground floor. On the same day the appellant appears to have accepted the appendix for the upper floor. He also accepted the appendix for the shop on the ground floor with the condition that he would retain the shop if the price was reduced otherwise he would surrender it. Two years later on the 14th .Of March 1962, the appellant applied to the Additional Settlement Commissioner for reduction in the price of the shop.
9. The appellant having failed to pay up the price in spite of his representations having been rejected the Deputy Settlement Commissioner gave him notice and started proceedings against him under Scheme No. 8. Vide report submitted to the High Court on behalf of the Settlement Commissioner.
10. The Chief Settlement Commissioner is the highest authority in the -Settlement Department and there is nothing under the Act or the Scheme which prevented him from collecting in any manner the necessary information :and data required for arriving at a fair and just decision regarding the assessm ent of the evaluation price. The Chief Settlement Commissioner was fully competent to pass the impugned order and the High Court was, therefore, right in not interfering with it in the exercise of the Court's ,Constitutional jurisdiction, particularly when the aforesaid rules had been 'substantially complied with.
11. I would, accordingly, dismiss the appeal but without any order as tap costs.
12. MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-I agree.
13. MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.-I agree. s. A. H.