Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 769 and 770 of 1975, decided on 12th January, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 27th May, 1975 of the Lahore High Court in W. Ps. Nos. 993‑R and 994‑R of 1971).

---S. 19‑Remand‑Additional Settlement Commissioner passing order remanding case to Deputy Settlement Commissioner ten years ago for determining afresh eligibility of occupants to transfer of property in dispute‑Held: Too late in day to interfere with such order especially when order merely aimed at securing closer examination of eligibility of occupants seeking transfer and counsel could also not tell whether order of remand not already given effect to and some fresh orders not passed in light of remand order.‑[Remand of case].

Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanwir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in both the C. Ps. S. L. A.).

Rana Maqbul Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents (in both the C. Ps. S. L. A.).

Date of hearing : 12th January 1981.

‑This order will govern C. P. S. L. A. No. 769 and C. P. S. L. A. No. 770, as both of them have been dismissed by a common judgment dated 27‑5‑1975 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, while disposing of Writ Petition No. 993‑R of 1971 and Writ Petition No. 994‑R of 1971.

The learned Judge in the High Court has vide his judgment passed on 27‑5‑1975, upheld the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 14‑5‑1971 which was not interfered with by the Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 29‑10‑1975 whereby the case was remitted to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for determining afresh the eligibility of the occupants to the transfer of the property in dispute. At the same time, some further directions and guidance was given as to how the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner should proceed in the matter. The aforementioned judgment is now sought to be challenged by these two petitions for leave to appeal.

Obviously, it is too late in the day to interfere with the order of remand passed nearly ten years ago, especially when the effect of it is merely to secure closer examination of the eligibility of the occupants seeking transfer of the property. The learned counsel was, moreover, also unable to let us know as to whether the order of remand has not already been given effect to and some fresh orders not passed in the light of the aforesaid order.

These petitions are, therefore, clearly not fit ones wherein leave to appeal can be granted and they are dismissed accordingly.

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.