Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.1934 of 1984, decided on 22nd December, 1984.

---Art. 199--Person if having no right at time of decision by competent Court and another person having right declared to possess that, first person could not get that decision annulled by saying that years later he had filed appeal against decision of first Court and right had been conferred on him in integrum before decision of appeal.

--- Laws do not operate retrospectively moreso notifications, nor, affect judicial or quasi-judicial decisions rendered earlier.

---S. 10--Notifications dated 3-9-1979 and 20-4-1983--Notification dated 20-4-1983 neither retrospective in effect nor providing that decisions earlier made were to be affected or annulled--Such notification conferring proprietary rights, coming into force during pendency of appeal, held, of no avail to petitioner. The Province of East Pakistan v. Hussain Mia P L D 1965 S C 1 distinguished. Ch.Bashir Hussain Khalid for Petitioner.

Report earlier called for was received and the learned counsel for the petitioner on 15-12-1984 took time to file a rejoinder. He states that a C.M. application alongwith documents pointing out that the land in question was not within the prohibitory zone as stated in the report, has been filed. That application has not yet been put up. However, it is not necessary to adjourn the case for that application because the case has to be decided on its own merits on the basis of the validity or otherwise of the orders passed by the appropriate forums and the point of prohibited zone is not relevant. 2. The petitioner got the land in question on tender basis from Kharif 1978 to Rabi, 1983. Mst. Sairan Bibi, widow of Ghulam Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.4 and 5 was held entitled to alternate land under the Ejected Tenants Scheme, by the Deputy Commissioner/ Collector vide order dated 28-2-1974. The land in question was allotted to her and she agreed to take possession after the expiry of the lease period in favour of the petitioner. Order was accordingly passed by the C.A./Collector, Faisalabad on 18-3-1981. The petitioner first challenged the order by means of a civil suit which was subsequently withdrawn and then an appeal was filed before the Commissioner. The appeal was found to be time-barred and the plea of the petitioner that he was entitled to conferment of proprietary rights vide Government Notification dated 3-9-1979, was repelled with the observation that the petitioner was not in cultivating possession since before Kharif, 1977 as required in the said Notification. This is vide order dated 30-10-1983. The petitioner filed a revision petition which has been dismissed by the learned Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, vide order dated 11-12-1983. Hence this Constitutional petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the notifica tion dated 3-9-1979 was not applicable to the facts of 'the case because the petitioner was not given the land on tender until 1978 and, therefore, the question of his being in possession prior to Kharif, 1977 did not arise. His case is, however, based on the notification dated 20-4-1983 and he will be entitled to the conferment of proprietary rights thereunder notwithstanding that on the date when the order inter parties was passed by the Collector on 18-3-1981, the notification was not in the field because the law which prevailed at the time of the decision of the appeal, was to govern the case and the appeal was disposed of by the Commissioner on 30-10-1983 after the issuance of notification dated 20-4-1983. He placed reliance on the Province of East Pakistan v. Hossain Mia P L D 1965 S C 1. 4. The contention is not correct. It' at the time of decision by a competent Court a person has no right and another having the right is declared to possess that, the first person cannot get that decision annulled by saying that years later he had filed an appeal against the decision of the first Court and a right has been conferred on him in the integrum before the decision of the appeal. This would obviously put all decisions in melting pot for an indefinite period of time. Laws do not operate retrospectively, more so notifications, nor, affect judicial B or quasi-judicial decisions rendered earlier. The notification relied upon dated 20-4-1983 is neither retrospective in effect, nor does it provide that decisions earlier made were to be affected or annulled. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable. The Legislation had been given retrospective effect and the decision upheld the intention of the parties transferring certain rights--which were not allowed to be defeated. 5. In view of what has been stated above, there is no force in this petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. M.A.K. 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.