Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 308 of 1975, decided on 26^th October, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 29‑9‑1974 in R. P. 71 of 1973).

(a) Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)--

----S. 19‑Revision‑Delegation of powers‑Additional Settlement Com missioner and Settlement Commissioner both delegatees of Chief Settlement Commissioner in regard to exercise of revisional powers revisional powers having been once exercised by Additional Settlement Commissioner and exhausted, Settlement Commissioner, held, could not exercise such power.‑[Revision (civil)‑Delegation of powers].

West Pakistan Land Commissioner, Lahore and others v. Fatehullah Khan and others P L D 1971 S C 393 and Noor Muhammad, etc. v. Chief Settlement Commissioner P L J 1974 Lah. 218 ref.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

‑

---Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal‑Contention that tribunal concerned had no power to decide revision petition not raised before such tribunal‑Petitioner, held, cannot complain on such score.

S. Iqbal Ahmad Zaidi, Advocate, instructed by Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 26th October, 1980.

,

.‑As the petition against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 16th November, 1973, dismissing Writ Petition No. 492‑R of 1966 is barred by 331 days for which there is no explanation, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he would not challenge it. He, however, seeks to challenge the order passed in Review Petition No. 71 of 1973 dated 20th of September, 1974.

The claim of the first and the second respondents was transferred from village Qaim Shah Wala to village Mohammadipur, Tehsil Chunian, District Lahore, for settlement. On 1st of May, 1962 a piece of land was proposed for transfer in their favour at Khata Nos. 715 and 716 of R. L. II which proposal was confirmed on 4th of July, 1962. The petitioner, who claims to be the sitting allottee of that village filed an appeal against the confirma tion of this land before the Chief Settlement Commissioner (Land) who accepted it by order dated 24th of January, 1964, with the result that the confirmation was cancelled and the land was re‑allotted to him. These respondents then filed a revision against the order before the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) on 11th of March, 1964, and during the pendency of these proceedings, Ordinance No. XIII of 1964 was enforced on 28th of December 1964, which took away the revisional powers of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land). Nonetheless he exercised his revisional powers and allowed it by order dated 26th of April 1965. Thereupon, a second revision was preferred before the Settlement Commis sioner (Land) who accepted it by order dated 24th of February, 1966. Aggrieved by this order the respondents filed a Writ Petition No. 492‑R of 1966 in the High Court which was accepted by order dated ‑ 10th of November 1973. The petition felt aggrieved by it and filed a review petition, which was dismissed by order dated 20th of September, 1974.

As the only point for consideration was in regard to the maintainability of the second revision petition, the High Court held, while disposing of the writ petition, that as it was filed after the promulgation of Ordi nance No. XIlI of 1964, which took away the second exercise of revisional powers it was incompetent. In support of the review petition it was urged that despite the exercise of the revisional powers by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, the Settlement Commissioner was competent to revise the order under subsection (2) of section 19 of the Act. But this contention was repelled on the ground that the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner were both delegatees of the Chief Settlement Commissioner in regard to the exercise of revisional powers; and the revisional powers having been once exercised by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and exhausted, the other, delegatee, namely, the Settlement Commissioner could not exercise this power and for this pro position the High Court placed reliance on West Pakistan Land Commissioner, Lahore and others v. Fatehullah Khan and others (P L D 1971 S C 393 ) and Noor Muhammad etc. v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (P L D 1974 Lah. 218)

The same contention, as was urged before the High Court in the review petition, was raised before us but we find no substance in it for the reasons given by the High Court. The learned counsel was not able to show as to how this conclusion was assailable in the context of the dictum of this Court which was followed by the Lahore High Court in Noor Muhammad, etc. v. Chief Settlement Commissioner. It was next urged that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had no power to decide the revision petition but as no objection was taken before him it is not now open to the petitioner to complain about it. Further, as would appear from the order of the High Court this contention was also not raised before it and the case was argue from the angle that despite the exercise of the revisional power by to Additional Settlement Commissioner, this power could further be exercised by the Settlement Commissioner under section 19 (2) of the Act to correct the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner.

Accordingly, we find no merit in this petition, which is dismissed.

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.