Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 21 of 1970, decided on 7th May 1970.

O. XLI, r. 5‑ Stay of proceedings‑Petition alleging lack of jurisdiction in authority to pass impugned order and also alleging order to have been passed under complete misconception‑No prayer for order for maintenance of status quo during pendency of appeal, but such prayer made when petitioner threatened with implementation of the impugned order‑Case, held, fit for an order for maintenance of status quo.

S. Islamul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Wali Muhammad Khawaja, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 7th May 1970.

J.‑In this matter leave was granted on the 4th of March 1970, to consider the validity of an order passed by the Settlement Commissioner in revision, whereby transfer of certain lands in favour of the petitioners was set aside and a fresh division was ordered.

The contention raised in the petition for special leave was that the Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to alter the orders of transfer in demarcation proceedings. It was also contended that the Settlement Commissioner had excluded one of the petitioners under a complete misconception. In these circumstances, it is obvious that the petitioners should also have prayed for an order to maintain the status quo during the pendency of the appeal in this Court. This was not done then, but now au application has been moved on the ground that the Settlement Department is threatening to give effect to the impugned order of the Settlement Commissioner.

This is a fit case in which the status quo should, in our opinion, be maintained. We, accordingly, direct that during the pendency of the appeal in this Court the order of fresh division passed by the Settlement Commissioner in revision should not be given effect to and the status quo should be maintained.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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