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.
Before Irshad H. Khan, J
MANAZAR HUSSAIN KAZMI AND ANOTHER-Petitioners
versus
THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ER-Respondent
Writ Petition No. 561.-R of 1979, decided on 16th June 1981:
(a) Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XVIII or 1958)-
-- Ss. 10 & 11-No proceedings pending regarding claim for allotment of alternate land at time of repeal of Act-Order of Settlement Authority rejecting application for allotment of land in lieu of area cancelled Held, perfectly valid and in conformity with mandatory provisions of S. 3(L).-Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act
(XIV of 1975), S. 3(1).
Shah Nawaz v. Member, Board of Revenue P L D 1978 S C 266 ref.
(b) Practice and procedure-
-- Delay in disposal of cases by Court-Writ petition pending since two years at motion stage and yet to be admitted to regular hearing due to frequent adjournments for one reason or another-Failure to diligently pursue matter before Courts for resolving dispute between parties inter se and obtaining frequent adjournments and inordinate delay in furnishing reports and parawise comments called for by Courts-Held, would affect confidence of public retained in superior Courts-Such practice and state of affairs deprecated.-[Delay].
Bashir Zafar for Petitioner.
Maqbool Elahi Malik for Respondent.
This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 2-12-1978 of the Secretary (Rural) (S & R Wing), Board of Revenue. Punjab, Lahore whereby the request of the petitioner for allotment of an alternate land has been rejected by the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member; Board of Revenue on the ground that his request cannot be considered at this belated stage after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws.
2. The brief facts as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioners being claimant displaced persons with verified claim for agricultural land abandoned in India, were allotted land in village Hardo Lakheke vide allotment order dated 13-9-1963, and a copy of R. L. II was duly issued. One Fazal-eHaq, amongst other land; was also allotted the area allotted to the petitioners. When the matter was brought to the notice of the relevant authorities, the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land), exercising owners under sections 10 and I1 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement Act, 1958, cancelled the allotment in favour of Fazal-e-Haq and maintained the allotment of the petitioners. One Mian Muhammad Hanit; who was vendee from Fazal-e-Haq filed Settlement Revision No. 155 of 1968 in the High Court which was admitted to a regular hearing on 4-12-1968. During the pendency of the proceedings in the High Court, the petitioners as a result of compromise agreed that allotment made to Fazal-e-Haq represented by Mian Muhammad Din vendee may be made. A Division Bench of this Court accordingly disposed of Settlement Revision No. 155 of 1968 on 3-7-1970 (Annexure A).
3. After the repeal of the Evacuee Laws, the petitioner vide an application dated 9-1-1978 (Annexure B) made an application to the respondent that he may be allotted evacuee land in lieu of the area cancelled from allotment and the Subordinate Officer may be directed accordingly (Annexure B). The respondent No I rejected the application as he had no jurisdiction to entertain the same after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws.
4. The impugned order is perfectly valid and is in conformity with the mandatory provisions of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Law (Repeal) Act, 1975 ; inasmuch as, there were no,,
"pending proceedings" regarding the claim of the petitioner for allotment of an alternate land at the time of the repeal of the Act, refer Shah Nawaz v.
Member, Board of Revenue P L D 1978 S C 266.
5. I may also observe in the passing that this writ petition is pending since 1979 at motion stage and has yet not been admitted to a regular hearing and ha3 been unduly prolonged on account of frequent adjournments for one d reason or another. Failure to diligently pursue the matter before the Courts for resolving the dispute between the parties inter se and obtaining frequent adjournments and inordinate delay in furnishing reports and parawise comments called for by the Courts from the Government functionaries, corporations, public servants etc. at motion stage will affect the confidence of the public retained in the superior Courts of this country which is vital for the internal security of the State itself and the Courts of justice and this is rational behind the law and Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, which so jealously guard dignity of the Court. Without the active co-operation of the learned members of the legal profession, a strong and independent Bar, which is vital for the administration of justice and not acting as "Yes man" to an "erring Judge" the cases cannot be expeditiously disposed of for the mutual benefit of the Bench and the Bar in general, and in the interest of the litigant public, in particular. This is a matter of utmost importance for the whole nation.
In view of the above. the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.
S. Q. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer