Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 982 of 1979, decided on 12th August, 1984.

(On appeal from the Order of the Lahore High Court, dated 23-7-1979 in Writ Petition No. 709/11 of 1979).

---Art. 185(3)--Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10--Finding of Settlement Commissioner amongst others while dismissing revision petition was that "revision petition filed by petitioner was in respect of same property and regarding same dispute which had already been dismissed' by a Settlement Commis sioner"--On proper scrutiny it was found that Settlement Commissioner in revisional order affirmed finding of fact by making reference to earlier finding of another Settlement Commissioner--Earlier finding of facts regarding absence of possession of petitioner was owned and affirmed on his revision petition also--Legitimate grievance having not therefore, been made before High Court, constitutional petition was rightly dismissed--Leave to appeal refused.

S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 12th August, 1984.

This petition for leave to appeal calls in question judgment, dated 23rd July, 1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby it refused to interfere with the order for disposal by auction of a vacant plot under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958).

The finding of fact by the concerned Settlement Authorities was that neither the petitioner nor the contesting respondent was in possession of the plot in question. A Settlement Commissioner while dismissing respondent s revision petition rendered this finding. The revision filed by the petitioner was disposed of by another Settlement Commissioner amongst others on the technical ground that one revision petition in respect of the same property regarding the same dispute had already been dismissed by a Settlement Commissioner. A learned Judge in the High Court refused to interfere in writ jurisdiction on a petition filed by the petitioner; mainly on the ground, that according to the findings of fact the petitioner was not found in possession of the plot in question.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Settlement Commissioner did not hear the petitioner s revision petition on merits, therefore, the finding of fact cannot be treated as conclusive.

Technically speaking the learned counsel is right but on proper scrutiny of the revisional order passed on petitioner's revision petition discloses that the Settlement Commissioner in this case also had in reality affirmed the finding of fact by making reference to the earlier findings by another Settlement Commissioner. In other words the earlier findings of fact regarding absence of possession of the petitioner was owned and affirmed on his revision petition also. That being so no legitimate grievance could be made before the High Court. The Constitutional petition accordingly was rightly dismissed. This petition thus fails and is dismissed.

M. Z. M. Appeal 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.