Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 739 of 1975, decided on 16th December, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 8‑5‑1975 in Writ Petition No. 728‑R of 1969).

---S. 3(1), Proviso‑Occupancy rights ‑ Points raised by petitioner already noticed by High Court‑Petitioners to be blamed for failure to attend on date of hearing and to substantiate alleged rights‑Leave to appeal refused.

Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: I6th December, 1980.

This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 8‑5‑1975 dismissing Writ Petition No. 728‑R of 1969 filed by the petitioners who sought to challenge the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 2‑4‑1965. By this order, learned Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelled the allot ment issued to the petitioners for the land measuring 312 kanals and 14 marlas in Chak No.: 16, Tehsil Kasur, District Lahore, on the ground that the petitioners had not been able to establish their entitlement, or that they had any verified claim awaiting satisfaction. The petitioners had failed to appear on 20‑4‑1964 when the order was passed, in spite of the fact that on the earlier date of the hearing they were present and the case was adjourned on their request so as to substantiate their claim.

Mr. Munir Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no reasonable opportunity was given by the Additional Settlement Commissioner to the petitioners to establish that they had acquired occupancy rights in the property, and even otherwise learned Additional Settlement Commissioner was under legal obligation to examine the record before passing the order on merits of the case. Learned counsel further submits that petitioners, in any case, were entitled to the first offer of sale of the land to them under the benefit that accrued under the proviso to subsection (1) of section 3 of Ordinance XV of 1974.

All these points have already been noticed and rejected by the learned Single Judge for the reason that the petitioners have to blame themselves for their failure to attend on the date of hearing and to substantiate there alleged rights. As to the last plea raised by the learned counsel, learned) Single Judge observed:

"Last of all, it was argued that in view of the amendment in law by Ordinance XV of 1974, the case of the petitioner fell within the proviso to subsection (1) of section 5 and as such the Settlement Department should have first offered this land for sale to the petitioner. This point too is without any substance because it provides no ground to declare the impugned order to be without lawful authority. It was for the petitioner to have approached the proper authorities, and it is not for me now to consider this request."

No exception can be taken with the view that has prevailed with the learned Single Judge in the High Court. The petition is dismissed in limine .

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.