Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 292 of 1972, decided on 13th November 1972.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 11th April 1972, in Writ Petition No. 741‑B of 1971).

Constitution of Pakistan (1972),

Art. 186(3)‑Special leave to appeal‑High Court holding that order of Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner being not without jurisdiction and matter also not being finally decided no occasion for revision of such order arose High Court's order, held, not faulty‑Special leave to appeal refused.

Allah Wasaya Malik, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 13th November 1972.

This leave petition arises out of the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated the 30th July 1971 remanding the case to the local Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner (Land) for a fresh decision after giving both the parties full opportunity with regard to their respective claims as well a with regard to the exact date of death of Mst. Naji from whom the parties claimed rights to the property in dispute. On a Constitution petition by the petitioners a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed the petition and refused to interfere with the said order of remand on the ground that it was open to the petitioners in the fresh enquiry to show that the allocation of shares made in their favour was in accordance with the law and within the scope of the remand order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner. The learned Judge relied on the case of Khalilur Rehman Dawoodi v. The Claims Commissioner, Government of Pakistan, Lahore (PLD1965SC269) in support of his decision not to exercise the Court's discretion in favour of the petitioners because if the impugned order was removed they would get away with shares much in excess of their entitlement.

It has been contended before us that the learned Judge of the High Court having found that the order of the Settlement Commis sioner was without jurisdiction should have issued the discretion asked for.

The revision petition in which the impugned order was passed by the Settlement Commissioner was from the order of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner passed on remand by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner. The learned Judge of the High Court held that the said order of the Assistant Rehabilita tion Commissioner might be illegal, but was not without jurisdiction. The learned Judge further held that the said revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner not having been filed in time, the impugned order was without jurisdiction. In effect it was held that inasmuch as the said order of the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner was not without jurisdiction there was no occasion for the said revisional application.

The matter has not yet been finally decided.

We are unable to find fault with the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed. We should, however, like to say that the observations made by him should not stand in the way of the petitioners' claim at the hearing of the case on remand,

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.