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. 29 of 1971, decided on 6th July 1972.
(On review from the judgment and order of the Supreme Court, dated the 7th‑ July 1971, in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1968).
Constitution of Pakistan (1963),
Art. 62‑Review by Supreme Court‑Order of remand passed by Supreme Court on appeal‑ Review of order sought on ground that new factual or legal position was discovered by the petitioner subsequent to passing of order of remand‑Held, such discovery of new or legal position did not furnish a ground for review merely because petitioner was ignorant of same at the time.
Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rao Muhammad Yusuf Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 6th July 1972.
This petition seeks review of an order of a Bench of this Court dated the 7th of July 1971, made in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1968. By that order, the case was remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to decide it afresh after hear in, both the parties on the factual and legal position with regard to the character of the disputed land for its transfer under the settlement law. This remand was con sidered necessary as the disputed land had been the subject of two conflicting orders by two Additional Settlement Commis sioners. One had dealt with it and disposed it of in favour of the respondents, Shamshad Ali and others as an industrial concern under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act XXVIII of 1958. The other had treated it as a piece of agricultural land and transferred it under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act XLVII of 1958 in favour of the present applicants, Ghulam Hussain and others.
The learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the Chief Settlement Commissioner has, in a policy decision, laid down that if there is a conflict between the authorities under the Land Settlement Act and under the Displaced Person (Compensa tion and Rehabilitation) Act respectively, then the decision of the latter should prevail. It is submitted that under this policy decision, which the order under review has not taken note of, the applicants were entitled to the transfer of this property as an industrial concern, and that the remand order made by this Court for a fresh decision by the Chief Settlement Commissioner should be recalled. No such policy decision was referred to us at the time of the hearing of the original petition, and even if the petitioner has now been able to discover one, it does not furnish a ground for review merely because he was ignorant of the same himself at the time. However, since the case has been remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to decide the same both on facts as well as on law, it will be open to the petitioners to urge for a decision in their favour on any valid ground, factual or legal. There is no substance in this review petition, which is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer