deputy commissioner notification set aside judgement.
 |
| Illegal notification setaside by high court |
غیر قانونی نوٹیفیکیشن کے خلاف رٹ پٹیشن
زیرِ نظر معاملہ ایک ایسے نوٹیفیکیشن کے خلاف دائر رٹ پٹیشن سے متعلق ہے جو ڈپٹی کمشنر رحیم یار خان کی جانب سے جاری کیا گیا تھا۔ اس نوٹیفیکیشن کے ذریعے زمین کے تنازعات کے حل کے لیے تحصیل سطح پر لینڈ ڈسپیوٹ ریزولوشن کمیٹیاں قائم کی گئیں اور ان کے اختیارات و طریقہ کار بھی خود ہی متعین کر دیے گئے، حالانکہ ایسا کرنے کا اختیار قانون ڈپٹی کمشنر کو فراہم نہیں کرتا۔
نوٹیفیکیشن کا پس منظر اور نوعیت
نوٹیفیکیشن میں زمین سے متعلق تنازعات کو جلد نمٹانے، تشدد اور امن و امان کے مسائل کو روکنے کے نام پر ایک نیا انتظامی فورم قائم کیا گیا۔ اس میں کیسز وصول کرنے، فریقین کو طلب کرنے، ریکارڈ دیکھنے، سائٹ کا معائنہ کرنے اور سفارشات دینے جیسے اختیارات شامل کیے گئے، جو درحقیقت عدالتی نوعیت کے تھے۔
فریقین کے درمیان زیرِ التوا سول تنازع
درخواست گزار اور نجی فریقین کے درمیان زمین کی ملکیت اور قبضہ سے متعلق سنگین سول تنازعات پہلے ہی متعلقہ سول و ریونیو فورمز کے سامنے زیرِ التوا تھے۔ اس کے باوجود نجی فریقین نے لینڈ ڈسپیوٹ ریزولوشن کمیٹی سے رجوع کیا، جہاں درخواست گزار کو سنا تک نہیں گیا اور یہ مؤقف اختیار کیا گیا کہ یہ کارروائی انتظامی نوعیت کی ہے۔
ڈپٹی کمشنر کے اختیارات کا قانونی جائزہ
ہائی کورٹ نے واضح طور پر قرار دیا کہ ڈپٹی کمشنر سمیت تمام انتظامی افسران قانون کی پیداوار ہیں اور وہ صرف وہی اختیارات استعمال کر سکتے ہیں جو انہیں قانون نے صراحتاً عطا کیے ہوں۔ کوئی بھی انتظامی اتھارٹی از خود ایسے اختیارات تخلیق نہیں کر سکتی جن کی اجازت قانون میں موجود نہ ہو۔
پنجاب سول ایڈمنسٹریشن ایکٹ 2017 کی تشریح
عدالت نے پنجاب سول ایڈمنسٹریشن ایکٹ 2017 کا تفصیلی جائزہ لیا اور قرار دیا کہ اس ایکٹ کے تحت سول حقوق کے تعین یا نجی فریقین کے تنازعات کے فیصلے کے لیے کسی کمیٹی کے قیام کا اختیار ڈپٹی کمشنر کو حاصل نہیں۔ دفعہ 10 کے تحت کمیٹیاں بنانے کا اختیار حکومت کو دیا گیا ہے، نہ کہ ڈپٹی کمشنر کو، اور وہ کمیٹیاں بھی صرف ہم آہنگی اور سہولت تک محدود ہوتی ہیں۔
انتظامی اختیارات اور عدالتی دائرہ اختیار
ہائی کورٹ نے یہ اصول دہرایا کہ سول حقوق کا تعین، شہادت کی ریکارڈنگ اور فریقین کے درمیان تنازع کا فیصلہ صرف بااختیار عدالتیں ہی کر سکتی ہیں۔ انتظامی کمیٹیاں عدالتی فورمز کا متبادل نہیں بن سکتیں، خواہ ان کا مقصد کتنا ہی خوش آئند کیوں نہ ہو۔
غیر آئینی اور غیر قانونی اقدام
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ لینڈ ڈسپیوٹ ریزولوشن کمیٹی کا قیام، اس کے ٹی او آرز، اور اس کے تحت کی جانے والی تمام کارروائیاں نہ صرف غیر قانونی بلکہ آئینِ پاکستان کے بنیادی حقوق سے بھی متصادم ہیں۔ کسی شہری کو ایسے فورم کے سامنے پیش ہونے پر مجبور نہیں کیا جا سکتا جس کی کوئی قانونی بنیاد موجود نہ ہو۔
عدالتی نظائر کا حوالہ
فیصلے میں سابقہ عدالتی نظائر کا حوالہ دیتے ہوئے واضح کیا گیا کہ محض انتظامی نوٹیفیکیشن کے ذریعے قائم کی گئی کمیٹیاں اگر قانون کے بغیر عدالتی یا نیم عدالتی اختیارات استعمال کریں تو وہ غیر آئینی اور کالعدم قرار پاتی ہیں۔
حتمی فیصلہ
لاہور ہائی کورٹ، بہاولپور بنچ نے ڈپٹی کمشنر کی جانب سے جاری کردہ نوٹیفیکیشن کو غیر قانونی، غیر آئینی اور بلا اختیار قرار دیتے ہوئے کالعدم کر دیا۔ عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ فریقین اپنے تنازعات کے حل کے لیے قانون میں فراہم کردہ متعلقہ فورمز سے رجوع کرنے کے مجاز ہیں۔
زیر نظر رٹ پٹیشن ایک نوٹیفیکیشن کے خلاف فائل کی گئی ۔نوٹیفیکیشن ڈپٹی کمشنر نے جاری کیا تھا ۔ اور نوٹیفیکیشن میں وہ اپنی طرف سے طریقہ کار واضح کر رہا ھے۔ اور یہ اختیارات قانون کے تحت اس کے پاس نہیں ھیں جو نوٹیفکیشن میں لکھے ھیں۔
نو ٹیفکیشن میں کیسز کو اپنے طریقے سے جلدی نبٹانے کی بات ھو رھی ھے اور کمیٹیاں بنانے کی بات ھو رھی ھے۔اور مختلف طریقہ کار واضح کیے جا رھے ھیں۔
رٹ پٹیشن میں ھائیکورٹ کے روبرو نو ٹیفکیشن کو چیلنج کیا گیا۔ اور ھائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کے نوٹیفکیشن غیر آئینی اور غیر قانونی ہے۔
ڈپٹی کمشنر کوئی نو ٹیفکیشن جاری نہیں کرسکتا جس کی قانون اجازت نہ دیتا ھو۔
اور ہائی کورٹ نے نوٹیفکیشن کو کالعدم قرار دے دیا۔
High Court case law on Illegal notification of Deputy Commissioner
ereo. H C J D A 38
Judgment Sheet
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT,
BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR
Judicial Department
W. P. No. 10239 / 2018 / BWP
Mushtaq Ahmed
Versus
Deputy Commissioner, Rahim Yar Khan and seven others
JUDGMENT
Date of Hearing:
27.09.2021
Petitioner(s) By:
Mr. Mumtaza Mustafa, Advocate
Respondent(s)
By:
Mian Mansoor Ahmad Sheikh, Advocate
Ch. Shahid Mehmood, Assistant
Advocate General
ABID HUSSAIN CHATTHA, J: Through this constitutional
Petition, the Petitioner seeks a declaration to the effect that the
impugned Notification No. DC/PS/194 dated 06.08.2018 (the
“Notification”), whereby, Land Dispute Resolution Committees
(the “LDRC”) have been constituted at Tehsil level for alleged
amicable resolution of land related disputes, is illegal, void and
without lawful authority.
2.
The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner and
Respondents No. 3 to 8 were involved in civil litigation qua the
determination of their rights as co-owner with respect to land
situated in Chak No. 73/NP, Tehsil & District Rahim Yar Khan.
The contents of the Petition disclose that there are serious
disputes regarding the determination of rights between the
parties. However, this Court does not feel it necessary to describe
the nature and extent of such right and comment upon the merits
of the same for the purposes of decision of this Petition for the
W. P. No. 10239 / 2018 / BWP
reason that it may cause prejudice to the respective rights of the
parties. However, it may be remarked that chronic litigation
between the Petitioner and private Respondents range from
claims of ownership and possession regarding suit property
attracting civil and revenue laws and forums. Suffice is to say
that Respondents No. 4 to 8 filed an application on 04.09.2008
before Respondent No. 2, the Convener of the LDRC for getting
possession of disputed land upon which the Petitioner was
summoned who put his appearance on 10.11.2018 but the
Petitioner was not heard on the ground that the proceedings
before the LDRC are administrative in nature where counsels are
not allowed. For the disposal of lis in hand, it is indispensable to
judicially examine the legality and validity of the LDRC
purportedly set up by Respondent No. 1 (Deputy Commissioner,
Rahim Yar Khan) through the Notification referred supra which
is reproduced as under:-
No: DC/PS/194
OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAHIM YAR KHAN
Dated 06/08/2018.
NOTIFICATION
In order to stop violence, breach of law emanating
from land disputes, and to ensure speedy disposal of such
long standing cases, Land Dispute resolution Committees at
Tehsil Level are hereby notified with immediate effect for
amicable solution of land related disputes with the following
composition and TORs:
Composition:
i.
Assistant Commissioner (Convener)
ii.
Sub Divisional Police Officer (Co-Convener)
iii.
Tehsildar / Naib Tehsildar (concerned)
iv.
Station House Officer (Concerned)
TORs:
i.
To receive complaints regarding land disputes.
ii.
To examine Revenue record.
iii.
To carry out inspection of the site.
iv.
To call the concerned parties for hearing.
v.
To recommend necessary action to the Deputy
Commissioner and District Police Officer, after
3
W. P. No. 10239 / 2018 / BWP
perusing the record, inspecting the site and hearing
the parties.
vi.
To take action against encroachments on state land.
vii.
To take action on any land related matter referred
by the Deputy Commissioner and District Police
Officer.
viii.
To hold weekly meeting.
ix.
To communicate regular progress of cases to the
Deputy Commissioner and District Police Officer.
Deputy Commissioner
Rahim Yar Khan
--------------------------------------------------
3.
Learned Law Officer was confronted as to what is
the legal backing of the LDRC as no law has been cited therein
under which it had been issued. He relied upon the report and
parawise comments filed by the official Respondents and stated
that the LDRC had been constituted under the Punjab Civil
Administration Act, 2017 (the “Act”). He argued that the Act
was promulgated to institute a comprehensive system of civil
administration in the Punjab for effective administration,
improved service delivery, better coordination, supervision and
regulatory enforcement and for all other ancillary matters.
Further stated that the Deputy Commissioner had executive and
administrative power under the said Act to constitute the LDRC.
The Deputy Commissioner can exercise administrative powers
in revenue matters other than the judicial proceedings
simultaneously to facilitate the public and improve service
delivery in the subordinate offices. The LDRC was executive in
nature to deal with the Qabza Group & land grabbers who
deprive poor people from their property, however, the LDRC did
not deal or interfere with any matter sub-judice before any Court
of law. The vital purpose of the LDRC was to redress the issues
of common people at grass root level and ensure justice at door
step.
4.
This Court is of the firm view that the provisions of
the Act have been misconstrued and misapplied in the present
context. The Act does not in any way extend the system of civil
4
W. P. No. 10239 / 2018 / BWP
administration for the determination of civil rights between the
private parties which are required to be determined by the Courts
of competent jurisdiction. The system of civil administration
including all public functionaries are creation of the law and are
bound by the law. They cannot exercise any power not
specifically conferred by law. Section 10 of the Act provides that
“The Government may constitute Divisional, District or Tehsil
Coordination Committees consisting of such heads of local
governments, members of National Assembly and provincial
Assembly, heads of Division, District and Tehsil administrations
and police and such other persons as may be specified to achieve
the goals of good governance, effective service delivery, public
welfare and better coordination through democratic control and
oversight.” Importantly, power to constitute the LDRC under
Section 10 of the Act is reserved with the Government and not
the Deputy Commissioner. Such Committees are merely
restricted to provide voluntary services to the public and do not
have any legal power and mandate to decide their civil or revenue
cases or determine their rights of civil nature requiring recording
of evidence. It is well-settled that jurisdiction not vested in a
body cannot be assumed even by the consent of the parties.
Similarly, the reliance upon Section 15 of the Act is also
misplaced. The said Section only empowers the Deputy
Commissioner on his own, or on the request of the head of a local
government or head of the District Police, to convene a meeting
for the purpose of maintaining public order and safety of public
and public or private properties in the District. The mandate of
such committees or meetings cannot be extended to subvert the
specific provisions of law providing forums or remedies for the
determinations of civil rights of the people including the Courts
of competent jurisdiction. Rather, even any executive action
taken under any Section of the Act would be subject to judicial
review. The reliance on the provisions of the Act with respect to
5
W. P. No. 10239 / 2018 / BWP
the constitution of the LDRC is not backed by any law. The
perusal of TOR’s of the LDRC include receiving of complaints
regarding land disputes, examination of revenue record, carrying
out inspection of site, calling the concerned parties for hearing,
making recommendations for necessary action to the Deputy
Commissioner and District Police Officer after perusing the
record and taking action against encroachments on state land etc.
Many such functions are beyond the mandate of the Act itself.
No citizen of Pakistan enjoying fundamental rights and statutory
rights under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,
1973 can be compelled to do anything what the law does not
require him to do. Constitution of such LDRC is, therefore,
beyond the mandate of the Act and against the provisions of the
Constitution. Hence, constitution of the LDRC without any
backing of specific law which confer such functions as were
granted in the Notification is patently illegal. In the case titled,
“Raja Muhammad v. Mst. Shamim Akhtar and 2 others” (PLD
2008 Lahore 408) maintenance allowance fixed by the Family
Court in favour of wife and minor was enhanced by the Chairman
Khidmat Committee, which Committee was found to have been
constituted in exercise of executive powers through a notification
and it was held that every executive action should have backing
of some law and in absence of such law, the said committee
would be illegal and unconstitutional. Similarly, in case titled,
“Ch. Muhammad Idrees, Advocate v. S.H.O., Police Station,
Pattoki, District Kasur and others” (1999 CLC 570) it has been
held that in the matters of civil and criminal nature, Khidmat
Committee had no jurisdiction and lawful authority for taking
any action against one of the parties. In case titled, “Pir Imran
Sajid and others v. Managing Director / General Manager
(Manager Finance) Telephone Industries of Pakistan and others”
(2015 SCMR 1257) it was observed that object of good
governance could not be achieved by exercising discretionary
W. P. No. 10239 / 2018 / BWP
powers unreasonably or arbitrarily and without application of
mind. Such objective could be achieved by following the rules of
justness, fairness and openness in consonance with the
command of the Constitution enshrined in different Articles
including Articles 4 & 25 of the Constitution.
5.
In the instant case, it is evident that the LDRC had
assumed jurisdiction to itself regarding the determination of civil
rights pending between the parties under the garb of amicable
resolution of land disputes which was beyond its jurisdiction
conferred under the law including the Act. Even otherwise, no
legal mandate is conferred upon such LDRC to settle such civil
or criminal cases under any law. The LDRC had no jurisdiction
and lawful authority to decide the civil matter between the
Petitioner and the private Respondents. All orders passed and
actions taken by the LDRC are declared as illegal and unlawful.
Further, in order to prevent further abuse of power, the impugned
Notification is also declared to have been issued without any
lawful authority being beyond the mandate of the Act. The
parties to this lis are free to avail appropriate remedies available
under the law.
6.
Allowed in the above terms.
(ABID HUSSAIN CHATTHA)
JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment