Find a Lawyer

Letters Patent Appeal No. 325 of 1968 decided on 1st June, 1981

‑‑‑‑S. 15 read with Displaced Persons (Application for Compensation) Rules, 1959, r. 4‑Compensation Book‑Loss of‑Settlement authori ties under legal obligation to hold enquiry whether loss of original Compensation Book was bona fide or otherwise and upon proof of bona fide loss to issue duplicate Compensation Book.

Messrs S. Ali Bakhsh and Sons v. Additional Settlement Commissioner and another P L D 1968 Lah. 122 fol.

Ch. Muhammad Farooq for Appellants.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 1st June 1981.

‑This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 22nd October, 1968 of the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed of the appellants for the issuance of a duplicate Compensation Book was dismissed without going into the merits of the case, on ground of inordinate delay inasmuch as the .writ petition was filed nearly six months after the passing of the order impugned therein.

2. The brief facts of this appeal are that the appellants applied to the Settlement Authorities for the issuance of a duplicate Compensation Book in lieu of the Compensation Book No. 153254 on the ground that the original had been lost on 19th October, 1963. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lyallpur, wrote a note on the said application that Form A' No. 5446‑LYP‑11 of the applicants was not available on the record and that it was sent to (R) Lahore. He directed that the certificate may be obtained from (R) Lahore for the completion of record.

3. Notwithstanding this, no enquiry was held to ascertain whether the application of the appellants relating to the loss of the Compensation Book was bona fide. Instead, the Additional Settlement Commissioner (A & R) Lahore, vide his memorandum dated 20th July, 1966 turned down the request of the appellants on the ground that the loss was due to negligence and carelessness on their part and, as such, there was no justification for the issue of a duplicate set,

4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge should have decided the case on merits and that a mere fact that the writ petition was filed after a lapse of six months would not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that it suffered from laches, and was to be dismissed on that ground alone. He submits that in any case, the interest of justice demands that the case be decided on merits, particularly, when no period of limitation has been laid down in the Constitution for filing a writ petition. We are inclined to agree with the view that delay in the instant case is not ipso facto a sufficient ground for non‑suiting a party in a proceedings in writ jurisdiction. Each case is to be examined on its own merits while considering laches. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that the interest of justice demands its disposal on merits.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that in view of section 15 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabi litation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) read with Rules framed thereunder regard ing issuance of duplicate Compensation Book; appearing in Memorandum No. 7223‑Comp‑Reh/59, dated the 16th November, 1959, printed at page 80 of the Manual of the Settlement Law and Procedure (Old Edition), a legal obligation is imposed upon the respondents to issue a duplicate Compensation Book upon the proof of bona fide loss of the original. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants finds support from Messrs S. All Bakhsh and Sons v. Additional Settlement Commissioner and another (1) wherein a Division Bench of this Court after exhaustive survey of the Displaced Person (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and the Displaced Persons (Application for Compensation) Rules, 1959 held that on proper construction of section 15 of 1958 Act read with rule 4 of 1959 Rules, a legal obligation is cast upon the Settlement and Rehabili tation Authorities to issue a duplicate Compensation Book upon the proof of bona fide loss of the original.

6. We are in complete agreement with the precedent cited by the learned counsel for the appellants and respectfully following the decision of the Division Bench of this Court are of the view that the respondents were under a statutory obligation to hold an enquiry whether loss of the Compensation Book of the appellants was bona fide or otherwise and Compensation upon proof of bona fide loss of the original to issue duplicate Compensation Book.

7. For the foregoing reasons, we hereby accept the appeal and direct respondent No. 1 to hold an enquiry whether the loss of Compensation Book was bona fide and upon the proof of bona fide loss of the original Compensation Book and its genuineness to issue duplicate Compensation Book to the appellants in respect, of their registered claims. Respondent No. 1 may, if so desired, require the appellants to furnish indemnity bond to his satisfaction against any loss that may be suffered by Government on account of the issue of the duplicate copy. Since the appeal has not been opposed, we make no order as to costs.

S.Q. Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.