Find a Lawyer

Civil Review Petition No. K‑2 of 1969, decided on 16th May 1969.

(In the matter of review from the judgment and order of this Court dated the 8th January 1969, in C. P. S. L. A. No. K‑54 of 1968 ).

--S. 22‑Orders made by Settlement authorities can be revised only in appeal or revision under Act‑Minister for Rehabilitation and Works cannot countermand order of Chief Settlement Commissioner.

S. A. Nusrat, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abadullah Faruqi, Attorney for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 16th May 1969.

The petitioner's claim to the transfer of premises bearing Survey No. 8/18/P situated in Hassanali Effendi Road, Karachi, was ruled out by the Settle ment authorities. He then filed a writ petition in the High Court which was allowed in part and the Chief Settlement Commissioner was directed to dispose of the second revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated the 4th January 1961.

The writ petition in regard to transfer of some portions of the premises in favour of the respondents 5, 6 and 7 was dismissed on the finding that the transfer was made under section 10 (b) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, which precluded the petitioner from laying claim to it on the basis of his possession or allotment on a care‑taker basis.

Aggrieved by the order of the High Court dismissing the writ petition against the respondents 5, 6 and 7 the petitioner moved petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑54 of 1968 for leave to appeal inter alia on the ground that the respondents failed to produce any documents before the High Court to show that the transfers in their favour were made with the approval of the Central Government. In the High Court the counsel for the petitioner had admitted that the transfers in favour of the respondents 5, 6 and 7 were made under section 10 (b) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, but it was claimed that the transfers were subsequently cancelled. No document in proof of this assertion was brought to the notice of the learned Judges who, accordingly, overruled the plea. At the hearing of the petition for special leave to appeal, the petitioner who appeared in person took up the position that the approval given by the Central Government was subsequently withdrawn. As no such order was brought. to the notice of the Court, the petition was on 8‑1‑1969 dismissed.

The petitioner now seeks review of the order dated the 8th January 1969, on the plea that the transfer in favour of the respondents 5, 6 and 7 was‑ not made under section 10 (b) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act and the learned Judges in the High Court were wrong in making this assumption.

As seen counsel for the petitioner had admitted before the learned Judges in the High Court that the transfers were made under section 10 (b) and the petitioner himself adopted the same position before this Court on 8‑1‑1969. Mr. S. A. Nusrat appearing for the petitioner relied on the following order appear ing at the foot of the application made by the petitioner to the Minister for Rehabilitation and Works:

"Since the Supreme Court has already dismissed the appeal against the petitioners, we may direct the Settlement Commis sioner, Karachi, to vacate his orders and release the property subject to his entitlement under the law."

Under section 22 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act the orders made by the Settlement authorities are final and can be revised only in an appeal or revision for which provision is made in the Act itself. The Minister for Rehabilitation and Works could not, therefore, countermand the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated the 13th December 1963, whereby he dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated the 4th January 1961, and rejected the entitlement of the various applicants including the petitioner for transfer of the premises in question. It is not known who passed the order on the application by the petitioner dated 8‑2‑1964, but it is certain that no action was taken on that order. In case the order was passed by a competent authority and forwarded to the Settlement Commissioner for implementation it would have rendered it unnecessary for the petitioner to move the High Court in writ jurisdiction or this Court for special leave to appeal. Assuming that such an order was passed by an officer in the Ministry it was clearly without lawful authority, for the matter had been disposed of by the Settlement authorities in judicial proceedings which could be set aside only by the High Court in writ jurisdiction.

We thus find no 'proper ground to grant review of the order of the Court dated the 8th January 1969. The petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.