9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Necessity of framing rules for a specific class of displaced persons under the Act. 2. Existence of such rules for the class of displaced persons. 3. Legal value of press notes and memorandum issued by the government. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Necessity of Framing Rules for a Specific Class of Displaced Persons: The court examined whether it was necessary for the Central Government to frame rules for displaced persons who owned urban agricultural lands in Pakistan. It was established that urban agricultural land is a distinct category of evacuee property and displaced persons holding such lands form a separate class. The court referred to Sections 8, 14, and 40 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954, which collectively indicate that rules must be made for different classes of evacuee property, including urban agricultural land. The court agreed with the petitioner's counsel that the word "may" in Sections 8 and 40 should be interpreted as "shall," thereby making it mandatory for the government to frame rules for this class of displaced persons. 2. Existence of Such Rules for the Class of Displaced Persons: The respondents conceded that no special rules had been framed for this class of displaced persons. The court rejected the respondents' argument that rules could be deemed to have been framed by the process of interpretation, emphasizing that Rule 23, which deals with the sale of evacuee properties not allottable under Rule 22, does not cover urban agricultural land. The court also dismissed the relevance of Rule 95(5) and concluded that no rules had been framed for the payment of compensation to occupants of urban agricultural land. 3. Legal Value of Press Notes and Memorandum: The court held that the press notes and the memorandum issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner did not have the force of law and were merely executive instructions without statutory backing. Section 40(3) of the Act requires that all rules made under this section be laid before both houses of Parliament, which was not done for the press notes and memorandum. The court concluded that the Central Government could not substitute these press notes and memorandum for the required statutory rules, and any action taken based on them was of no legal effect. Conclusion: The court allowed the petitions, holding that the press notes and memorandum lacked legal force and that the Central Government could not sell evacuee urban agricultural land without framing relevant rules. Both judges agreed on the necessity of framing rules and the invalidity of the press notes and memorandum, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the rule-making provisions in the Act. The petitions were allowed, and any action taken or intended to be taken based on the press notes and memorandum was declared to have no legal effect. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
|
