Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 571 of 1976, decided on 9th March, 1983

(On appeal from‑the judgment dated 25‑3‑1976 of the Lahore High Court in L. P. A. No. 158 of 1975).

‑Arts. 185 (3) & 199 read with Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 3(2), proviso and Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)‑No further appeal, revision or review available against orders of notified officer under Act of 1975‑Leave to appeal‑‑Granted to consider submission that Inter‑Court Appeal before High Court was competent and case was not hit by proviso to S. 3(2) of Ordinance.

Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Shahzad Jahangir, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 9th March, 1983

‑According to the office note this petition is barred by 365 days,

The learned counsel for the petitioner has explained that in the petition he has challenged both the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 30‑5‑1975 (passed in Writ Petition No. 464‑R of 1975), as also the order of the Division Bench dated 25‑3‑1976 passed in the Letters Patent Appeal, which was directed against the first‑mentioned order (LPA 158175). The petition as it is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition is concerned, no doubt is barred by time, but it is in time so far as the order dated 25‑3‑1976 passed in the Letters Patent Appeal is concerned. He submits before us that he will only press this petition so far as the last mentioned order is concerned, namely, the order dated 25‑3‑1976, whereby the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed:

The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on the ground that the same was not competent, as it was hit by the proviso to section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. Subsection (2) of section 3 thereof is in the following terms :‑

"(2) An appeal shall also lie to a Bench of two or more Judges of a High Court from an order made by a Single Judge of that Court under clause (1) of Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan not being an Order made under sub‑paragraph (1) of paragraph (b) of that clause:

Provided that the appeal referred to in this subsection shall not be available or competent if the application brought before the High Court under Article 199 arises out of any proceedings in which the law applicable provided for at least one appeal or one revision or one review to any Court, Tribunal or authority against the original order."

In this case, the original order dated 21‑9‑1970 was passed in favour of the petitioner, whereby a plot (which is alleged by the other side to be a part of the main house) was auctioned in his favour. That order was subjected to a revision, which was disposed of by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 30‑10‑1971 who remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. In these circumstances, it was held that in view of the proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 no Infra‑Court Appeal was available against the order of the learned Single Judge, passed under Article 199 of the Constitution insofar as the original order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was subject to a revision.

Mr. Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, counsel for the petitioner, submits that the learned Judges of the Letters Patent Bench overlooked the circumstance that in pursuance of the order of remand of the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 20‑10‑1971 passed by the Settlement Commissioner, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, in point of fact, took up the case h sometimes in 1975 and ultimately disposed it of by his order dated 12‑6‑1975. By then, the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, had been promulgated, whereby the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 had, inter alia, been repealed. Upon the repeal of the aforesaid Act all proceedings which, immediately before such repeal, were pending before the authorities appointed there under were to stand transferred for final disposal to such officers to be notified by the Provincial Government in the official Gazette for disposal in accordance with the provisions of the Repealed Act. Under the said Act no further appeal, revision or review was available against the orders of such a notified officer. Since against the order dated 12‑6‑1975, challenged in the writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, the law applicable thereto provided no further appeal, revision or review. The submission is that the Intra‑Court Appeal before two Judges was competent and the case was not hit by the proviso of subsection (2) of section 3 of the Ordinance.

The question raised needs further consideration. Leave is, accordingly. granted.

Security in the sum of Rs. 1,000.

The appeal will be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file further documents and it will be listed for final hearing. on 2‑4‑1983. The representative of the Settlement Department has already appeared before us today and has accepted notice. Consequently, notices shall now issue only to Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Office to take necessary steps to complete the appeal by the date fixed.

Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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