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 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 353 of 1967, decided on 11th October 1967.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 19th May 1967, in Settlement Revision No. 5 of 1964).
----Ss. 11 & 19‑Question whether power of Chief Settlement Commis sioner under S.11 to cancel allotment controlled by provision of S. 19 which provides time limit for exercise of revisional jurisdiction‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question.
M. S. Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Senior Attorney for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 11th October 1967.
The question of law raised iii this petition for leave to appeal is whether section 11 of the Land Settlement Act which empowers the Chief Settlement Commissioner to cancel allotment of agricultural land on grounds specified therein is controlled by section 19 which provides a time limit for the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Chief Settlement Commissioner.
The facts are that on 28‑4‑1960 the disputed land situated within the municipal limits of the. Corporation of the City of Lahore was allotted to the respondent No. 2 as agricultural urban land. The land was in occupation of a number of dis placed persons as building site and had been partly built upon: Furqan Ahmad, respondent, to whom the land had been earlier transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act thereupon filed a revision petition against the order of allotment in favour of the respondent No. 2. The Settlement Commissioner rejected the revision petition as barred by time, but made a reference to the Chief Settlement Commissioner who found that the khasra numbers in dispute allotted to the respondent No. 2 were not agricultural land and acting under section 11 of the Land Settlement Act cancelled their allotment. The petitioner who had in the meantim purchased the land from the respondent No. 2 thereupon move the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction contending inter alia that the order of allotment dated 2R‑4‑1960 could not be called in question by the Chief Settlement Commissioner as the time prescribed in section 19 of the Settlement Act for revising the orders of the subordinates Settlement authorities had expired long ago. The plea did no find favour with the High Court and the writ petition was dismissed from which the petitioners seek leave to appeal.
The question raised being one of jurisdiction we grant leave to appeal. Security in the sum of Rs. 1,000.
Leave granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer