Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 55 to 58-P of 1980, decided on 7th April, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court dated 8-3-1980 in W. P. Nos. 17, 25, 26 and in 24/1977 respectively).

-- Art. 185 (3)-Leave to appeal-Could not be granted on basis of material not placed before High Court-Submission that material relied upon could not, despite best efforts, be made available at time of hearing of writ petitions accepted; but material having become available after judgment of High Court, proper course for petitioners held to apply for a review of judgment of High Court.-.[Review].

Abdul Samad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 7th April, 1980.

-The petitioners occupy four shops in Hangu of which particulars have been given in - these petitions. These shops were evacuee property and were purchased by the first respondent in these petitions at a public auction held by the Settlement Department. Mr. Samad admitted that a P. T. O. had been issued to the first respondent (to whom we will refer as the respondent) for all these shops, but learned counsel stated that the respondent had paid the price partly in cash and partly through compensation books and as the compensation books were found to be forged, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner/Naib Tehsildar had issued a notice to the respondent informing him that as the compensation books were forged, he should pay the balance of the transfer price in cash. The respondent repudiated the allegation that the compensation books submitted by him were forged, and the matter went in appeal to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Hangu, who held in his order dated 20th July, 1976 that the compensation books submitted by the respondent were forged and as the respondent had declined to comply with the notice of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner to pay the balance of the transfer price in cash, he cancelled the P. T. O. issued to the respondent. This order was challenged in a revision, but as the revision was dismissed, the respondent filed separate writ petitions for the four shops in the Peshawar High Court. As these writ petitions have been allowed, the petitioners have filed these petitions for leave.

The writ petitions were allowed on two grounds. The first was that the Assistant Settlement Commissioner/Naib Tehsildar was not competent to initiate proceedings against the respondent for the cancellation of his P. T. O. and the second ground was that there was no evidence to disprove the contention of the respondent that the compensation books submitted by him were not forged. And, in this connection, the learned Judge pointed out that the compensation books related to the Lahore area and that there was no evidence to show that the Settlement authorities in Lahore had held that the compensation books were forged. Mr. Samad Khan submitted that the petitioners had not been able to produce before the High Court evident to show that the compensation books had been forged. But, after the dismissal of the petitions, he was able to obtain copies of the order of the Assistant Accounts Officer (Settlement), Lahore dated 4-5-1964 and of the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 29-10-1965 which appear to support his submission that the compensation books submitted by the respondent were forged. He also relied on some other document; which had also not been produced before the High Court. We, therefore, observed that: leave could not be granted against the impugned judgment on the basis of material which had not been placed before the learned Judge of the High Court. Learned counsel's reply was that it was very difficult to obtain the relevant orders of the Settlement Department from Lahore, therefore, he was compelled to produce this material fur the first time in this Court. We accept learned counsel's submission that he was not able, despite his best efforts, to obtain the material on which he now relies at the time of the hearing of the writ petitions, but as the material has become available after the judgment of the High Court, dated 8-3-1980, the proper course for the petitioners is to apply for a review of the judgment of 8-3-1980. With these observations, the petitions are dismissed.

Petitions 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.