Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.388/R of 1975, heard on 9th December, 1985.

‑‑‑S.20‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2(2)‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Right of revision available to person before repeal of Evacuee Laws by Act XIV of 1975, held, would remain intact and could be availed of‑‑Such right would be governed by law in force at time of initiation of action unless amending law expressly takes away such right.

‑‑Art.199‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.20‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑ Non‑exercise of revisional jurisdiction by Tribunal, vested in it by law, held, would justify interference by High Courts in constitutional jurisdiction to declare such non‑exercise of jurisdiction to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑‑Notified. Officer, directed by High Court to decide revision in accordance with law.

Rana Muhammad Sarwar for Petitioner.

Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 9th December, 1985.

Through this constitutional petition, Jalil Ahmad petitioner wants this Court to declare the orders, dated 17‑4‑1975 of Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Mianwali and 9‑5‑1975 of Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha, to be without ‑lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The dispute relates to Ihata Nos.53, 54 and 55 measuring 10 Kanals situated in District Mianwali. The petitioner's case is that he had occupied the disputed land in the year 1947. He made application before Assistant Settlement Commissioner/ Tehsildar, Mianwali for the transfer of the disputed land under Settlement Scheme No. VII. .The application was allowed and the property was transferred to him on 16‑5‑1974 and P. T.O. was also issued in his favour. Feeling aggrieved of this transfer one Ali Ahmad, filed appeal before Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Mianwali who, vide his order, dated 17‑4‑1975 cancelled the allotment of the petitioner and directed that the disputed land be put to auction within a month. Petitioner filed revision before the Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha against that order which was dismissed on 9‑5‑1975 on the ground that since the revision was filed after 1‑7‑1974, therefore, the same was not competent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the land was allotted to the petitioner before the repeal of the Evacuee

Laws and the appeal was also filed against that order before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner before the Repeal of the Evacuee Laws, therefore, the petitioner could file revision before the Settlement Commissioner as a matter of right. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am of the view that the right of revision is governed by law in force at the time of initiation of action unless amending law expressly says otherwise. Since the right to file revision was very much available to the petitioner at the time of the 'start of the action and the same had not been expressly taken away, therefore, the revision filed by the petitioner, before the Settlement Commissioner was quite competent.

5. For what has been said above, the impugned order refusing to entertain the revision is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and the case is sent back to the A.D. C . (G) /Notified Office Mianwali for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving the parties opportunity of being heard. The parties are left, to bear their own costs.

A.A. Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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