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. 394 of 1967, decided on 26th October 1967.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the. High. Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 10th May 1967, in. Writ. Petition No. 532 of 1967).
, S. T (3) read with Registration of Claims, (Displaced Persons) Rules, 1955, r. 6(2‑A), proviso‑Claims Commissioner could act suo motu in revision, without limit of time if he thought fit to do so Claims Commissioner making no‑ declaration that he thought it fit to do so Whether revision undertaken after "conscious" application of mind Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question.
Muhammad Farooq Imam v. Claims. Commissioner P'I: D; 1964 S C 585 ref.
Muhammad Asif, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Gulzar Hasan, Attorney for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 26th October 1967.
‑This petition raises inter alia a question similar to that which arose and was decided in the case of Farooq Imam (
) The Claims Commissioner, on the 27th December 1963, acting on information, and seemingly after consultation with the Director of enforcement, reduced very sub stantially the extent of the claim of the petitioners, in respect of property abandoned in India, which had been duly examined and verified by a Claims Officer on the 14th June 1958, more than five years before. The action was in suo motu revision, for which at the time, the prescribed limitation was 90 days, but there was a proviso that the Claims Commissioner could act without limit of time, if he thought fit so to do.
In this case, as in the precedent case, the Claims Commis sioner had made no declaration that he thought it fit to revise the verification, despite the expiry of the limitation of 90 days. In. the precedent case, this Court ordered that the case be remand ed to the Claims Commissioner, to consider and decide whether it was appropriate that he should interfere.
We accordingly grant leave to appeal. The hearing will be expedited, and may proceed on the basis of the paper‑book of the petitioner, unless the Claims Commissioner has documents other than his final order to show that he acted after considering the circumstances and recording a decision that he thought it fit to interfere, despite expiry of the prescribed period of limitation. Security 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