Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Review Petition No. 40 of 1967, decided on 27th May 1968.
(Petition for Review of the order of the Supreme Court dated 13th March 1967, in C. P. S. L. A. No. K‑120 of 1966).
---- S. 20(2) and Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 98‑Whether Chief Settlement Commissioner had summoned the records and whether a particular officer had decided revision under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 as delegatee of Chief Settlement Commissioner‑Question of fact‑Could not be properly taken in writ jurisdiction objection not having been taken before Chief Settlement Commissioner himself.
Dr.Javid Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Kh.Musthaq Ahmad, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 27th May 1968.
The petitioner seeks review of the order of a Bench of this Court, dated 13‑3‑1967, whereby his plea that the Settlement authorities and the High Court in writ jurisdic tion had illegally held the plot in dispute to consist of three separate plots, was not accepted, and the prayer for leave to appeal was refused.
Dr. Javid Iqbal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the final revisional order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated the 21st of February 1962, adversely affecting the petitioner's rights, was without jurisdiction, as the revisional powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, had been withdrawn on the 13th of January 1962, by Ordinance No. II of 1962 except in cases of which the record had been summoned before that date by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, under subsection (2) of section 20 of the Compensation and Rehabilita tion Act of 1958. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the revision application was heard by Mian Ghulam Shabbir, as delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, although the delegated powers had also come to an end on the 13th January 1962. These contentions are not noted in the order under review, presumably because they were not urged before the Bench at the time, although Dr. Javid Iqbal points out that they were mentioned in the grounds of the leave petition.
However, the learned counsel had frankly conceded that these points were not urged before the Chief Settlement Com missioner in bar of his jurisdiction in deciding the revision application. Whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner had or had not summoned the records of the case before the 13th of January 1962, and whether Mian Ghulam Shabbir had decided the revision application in his capacity as the delegatee of the Chief Settlement Commissioner, although the order shows that he did so as the Chief Settlement Commissioner, are questions of fact which could have been investigated and decided by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, had the objection been taken before him.
We do not think that the objection to the jurisdiction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner which requires an inquiry into the factual position could properly be taken up in the High Court in writ jurisdiction, and in this Court, not having been raised, before the Chief Settlement Commissioner himself.
We see no substance in this petition which is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer