Find a Lawyer

Review Petition No.5 of 1984 in Civil Petition No.737 of 1977, decided on 3rd June, 1984. .

---O. XI--Petitions for leave against orders made by a Single Judge of High Court may be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges.

---O.XXVI--Review by Supreme Court--Contention in favour of review petition a question of fact and in that connection Authorities concerned holding against petitioner--Finding of Authorities based on record and duly noticed in judgment under review--No case having been made out for review petition dismissed---[Review by Supreme Court].

Ch. Khalil-ur-Rahman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1984.

In support of this petition for review, it has been urged firstly that the respondents' Civil Petition on its conversion into appeal ought to have been heard by a Bench consisting of, at least, three Judges". This is, however, not supported by the provision of Order XI under which petitions for leave against "order made by a Single Judge of the High Court" may be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges. Here the order of the High Courts impugned in the Civil Petition was by a Single Judge of that Court.

2. The main contention, however, is that the petitioners having been in occupation of Ahata No.11, had become its transferees by the operation of law under Scheme No.VII and as such that Ahata could not have been given to Ghulam Nabi. The question whether the petitioners were in occupation of the said Ahata is one of fact and in this connection the Settlement Commissioner in his order, dated 8-5-1975 and also the Additional Settlement Commissioner to whom the matter was remitted by the said order of the Settlement Commissioner, had in his order, dated 25-5-1976 held otherwise. The learned Settlement Commissioner by reference to the record had observed: "In Ahata No.11, Ghulam Nabi is in occupation according to the Jamabandi 1963-64". The Additional Settlement Commissioner, on further examination, had found the observa tion to be borne out from the revenue record. The contention, put forth by learned counsel is, thus, repelled by a finding to the contrary by the Settlement authorities which finding had been duly noticed in the judgment under review. No case is, therefore, made out for review. The petition is dismissed.

M . Z . M . 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.