DR. NASIH HASSAN SHAH, J.-By an order dated 12-7-66 passed in Writ Petition No. 1343/R-62, by Mr. Justice Abdul Hamid, the case relating to the transfer of property No. S-81-R-2 Katchery Road, Lahore, was remitted to the Settlement Commis--sioner with the direction that the appeal filed by Mian Abdul Hakim (the predecessor of the present appellants) should be re-hearts after notice to the parties. In pursuance of that order Mr. Muqarrab Khan re-heard the case and holding that the appeal filed by Mian Abdul Hakim was liable to dismissal, inter alia, because the same was time- barred for condonation of delay existed, proceeded to dismiss the appeal.
2. The question raised before us is that Mr. Muqarrab Khan could not hear and determine the appeal of Mian Abdul: Hakim as he was not the Settlement Commissioner appointed under section 9 of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, to exercise the revisional powers of the Settlement Commissioner under section 20 (3). It is contended that the order passed by him is without jurisdiction and of no-- legal effect.
3. This contention was also raised before the learned Chief Justice and repelled by his Lordship's order dated 1w-10-68, and it was held that the Notification published on 6th of March 1968, to the effect that Mr. Muqarrab Khan assumed charge of the office of the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore District, with effect from 26th February 1958, showed that Mr. Muqarrab Khan was conferred with the powers of the Settlement Commis--sioner, Lahore District, and he was, therefore, competent to hear the matter. This view is challenged in this appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, before us.
4. Mr. Abid Hassan Minto, learned counsel for the appel--lants, has placed before us two documents relevant to the appointment of Mr. Muqarrab Khan as Settlement Commis--sioner. The first is a Notification No. 127 (Sessions Judges)/ 7167-I-Admn-Reh/67, dated 13th September 1967, issued in exer--cise of the powers conferred by subsection (1) of section 9 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, by the West Pakistan Government as empowered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Works (Rehab. And Works Division) No.1--fication No. F-1(1)/65-SP, dated the 17th June 1965, appointing certain Additional Settlement Commissioners as Settlement Commissioners. Under this Notification Mr. Muqarrab Khan, Additional Settlement Commissioner, was invested with the powers of the Settlement Commissioner for Gujranwala, Sialkot and Sheikhupura. The second document is an order issued under Endt. No. 1240-I-Admn. Reh./68, dated 14th February 1968, issued by the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis--sioner whereby Mr. Muqarrab Khan was appointed whole time Settlement Commissioner for Lahore Division. It seems that the Notification published on 6th March 1968, already referred to, was issued in pursuance of the said order. The argument raised is that the Government of West Pakistan was not authorised to appoint Mr. Muqarrab Khan as the Settlement Commissioner under the Central Government's Notification dated 17th June 1965, in view of the terms of Para. 3 thereof. This Notification reads thus:- "No. F.1(1)/65-SP.-In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Art. 143 of the Constitution the President is pleased to entrust, with effect from the 1st July 1965, to the Government of West Pakistan, with their consent, the functions of The Central Government under the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1958 (III of 1958), Pakistan Rehabili--tation Act, 1956 (XLII of 1956) the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 (XII of 1957), the Displaced Persons (Comp and Rehab.) Act, 1958 (XLVII of 1958), subject to the following conditions, namely:-
(1) Notwithstanding the entrustment by this notification, the Central Government may itself perform those func--tions either generally or in any particular case or class of cases.
(2) The transfer of evacuee property already sanctioned by the Central Government under subsection (2) of section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. And Rehab.) Act, 1958 (XXVIII of 1958) shall not be cancelled or other--wise affected without the previous approval of the Central Government.
(3) No rule, order, notification, scheme or action made, issued, approved or taken by the Central Government under any of the aforesaid Acts shall be modified or varied in any respect without the previous approval of the Central Government.
(4) In the performance of these functions the Provincial Government shall be guided on questions of policy by instructions, if any, given to it by the Central Government which shall be the sole judge as to whether a question is a question of policy.
(5) The powers of the Custodian of Evacuee Property under the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, shall be conferred on the Chief Settlement Commis--sioner with effect from the 1st July 1965."
The precise argument is that since the delegation to the Pro--vincial Government by the Notification dated 7th June 1965, was subject to the conditions laid down therein, the third con-- dition whereof prevented the Provincial Government from varying the previous order of the Central Government whereby Mr. Muqarrab Khan stood appointed as Additional Settlement Commissioner, the order passed by the West Pakistan Government being inconsistent therewith is invalid.
5. There is no force in this contention. Both the Notifi--cations, dated 13th September 1967 investing Mr. Muqarrab Khan with the powers of Settlement Commissioner for Gujranwala, Sialkot and Sheikhupura as well as the order of 14th February 1968, have been issued by Mr. S. Manzoor Elahi, Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and Secretary to the Govern--ment of West Pakistan, (Rehabilitation Department). Under Notification-dated 17th June 1965, the functions of the Central Government under the Displaced Persons (Compn. And Rehab. Act, 1958, have been entrusted to the Provincial Government. Under the provisions of subsection (1) of section 9, the Central Government may, inter alia, appoint Settlement Commissioners for the performance of duties and functions assigned to them by or under this Act and may, by general or special order, provide for the distribution or allocation of work to be performed by them. The performance of this function having been entrusted to the Provincial Government, the said Government could make appointments of Settlement Commissioners. The interpretation sought to be placed on the terms of condition No. 3 to the conditions to which the delegation is subject the effect whereof is that every new order must be made with the-- previous approval of the Central Government, would render completely nugatory the entrustment of functions to the West Pakistan Government. The orders passed by the Provincial Government in the present case cannot be considered to modify or vary any rule, order, notification, scheme or action made, issued, approved or taken by the Central Government but to a fresh order of appointment of a Settlement Commissioner and cannot be deemed to be inconsistent with any order passed by the Central Government appointing Mr. Muqarrab Khan as a Settlement Commissioner under section 9 (1) of the Act.
6. It is then contended that the order of the Chief Settle--ment Commissioner/Secretary to Government of West Pakistan dated 14-2-68 appointing Mr. Muqarrab Khan as a whole time Settlement Commissioner for Lahore Division is not in accord--ance with law. It is argued that the functions of the Central Government were entrusted under Art. 143 of the Constitution by the President to the Government of West Pakistan. Under Art. 80 of the Constitution, the Executive authority is vested in the Governor of the Province. Although, it is admitted, that the Governor of a Province may specify the manner in which orders made in pursuance of any authority or power vested in the Governor shall be expressed and authenticated (vide Art. 81) but this authorisation, it is contended, only extends to those matters in respect of which the Executive authority of the Pro-- vince extends. Since the power to authenticate orders to be made on behalf of the Provincial Government to the Secretaries to that Government has not been delegated by the President in the Notification of 17th June 1965, all orders in the relevant respect, it is submitted, could only have been made by the Governor himself. The argument is misconceived. Once the' functions of the Central Government are entrusted to the Govern--ment of West Pakistan the effect is that the latter Government shall entirely replace the Central Government in relation to the administration of the Act, subject only to the reservations con--tained in the delegation itself. In regard to the functions delegated to it, no restriction exist as to mode and manner in which it (the Government of West Pakistan) is to exercise functions entrusted to it. If in the exercise of these functions the Provincial Government has acted in the same manner and in the same form that it acts while performing func--tions relating to the matters in respect of which the executive authority of the Province normally extends, under the provisions of Art. 136 of the Constitution, no objection can legitimately be raised to the exercise, in the usual manner, of the further functions that it has consented to exercise. In all matters in respect of which the executive authority of the Province extends orders can be issued on behalf of the Provincial Government, by the Secretary to the Government in the relevant department. The order dated 14th February 1968, having been issued by the Secretary to Government of West Pakistan. In the Depart--ment of Rehabilitation, the same cannot be held to be without lawful authority.
7. It was finally contended that Mr. Muqarrab Khan had travelled beyond the terms of the remand order passed by this Court in so far as he had decided the case on the merits whereas the case bad only been remitted to examine the question of limitation alone. Without expressing any opinion as to whether the interpretation placed by the learned counsel on the scope of the remand order is indeed correct, it may be observed that this argument is of no avail to the appellant because the learned Settlement Commissioner while disposing of the revision petition on the merits also examined the point of limitation and on that question his decision has gone against the appellants.
8. It was then submitted that the decision of the Settlement Commissioner in not condoning the delay is erroneous. This matter can hardly be agitated in the present proceedings. The learned Settlement Commissioner has held that "there is no good ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal", and nothing has been urged before us to assail the correctness of this finding.
9. The order passed by the learned Settlement Commissioner is also otherwise just and equitable.
No ground has been made out for interference with the order passed by the learned Chief Justice, sitting singly. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine.