Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.95‑R of 1974, heard on 12th February 1986.

‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss.10 & 11‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2 (2)‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5‑=Allotment of land, cancellation of‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑ Revisional Court neither considered explanation given by petitioner for not filing revision within time nor attended to application for condonation of delay in filing revision‑‑Revision al Court's order dismissing revision in limine as time‑barred, held, was illegal being based on non‑reading of petition and application ] or condonation of delay‑‑High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction declared order of revisional Court to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect and sent back revision to Notified Officer for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving parties opportunity of being heard.

Ch. Qamrud Din Meo for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 12th February 1986.

Through this constitutional petition, Abdur Rehman petitioner wants this Court to declare the order, dated 30‑12‑1972 of the Deputy Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner, Chunian and, dated 19‑11‑1.973 of the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The dispute relates to the transfer of Khasra No.155/1 measuring 7 Kanals 3 Marlas. The petitioner's case is that he was allotted this Khasra number by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 17‑7‑1965 but inadvertently instead of Khasra No.155/1, the Khasra No.156/1 was written on the Khata. The petitioner has ‑been in the continuous possession of this Khasra since 1965. It so happened that on 30‑11‑1972, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Chunian allotted and confirmed this Khasra in the name of Muhammad Siddique respondent. On coming to know of the confirmation in favour of Muhammad Siddiq respondent No.3, the petitioner challenged the order, dated 30‑11‑1972 before the learned. Settlement Commissioner, Lahore by filing revision which was dismissed in limine as time barred on 19‑11‑1973, hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the impugned order, dated 30‑11‑1972 was passed without notice to the petitioner and that he filed a revision within time from the date of his knowledge and that the application moved by him for the condonation of delay was not attended to by the learned Settlement Commissioner. It may, be noted that the respondents have been ordered to be proceeded

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I find that the order impugned in revision before the learned Settlement Commissioner was passed at the back of the petitioner, that in para No.8 of the revision petition, it has been stated that the petitioner was not aware of the order as the same was passed in his absence with the connivance of lower staff of the Settlement and Revenue Authorities. The application for condonation of delay was also given. Despite this, the learned Settlement Commissioner has neither considered the explanation given by the petitioner for no filing the revision within time nor he attended to the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, for the condonation of delay in filing the revision: In the circumstances, I am of the view that the revision petition has not been decided by the Settlement Commissioner in accordance with law and the impugned' order, dated 19‑11‑1973 is based on the non‑reading of the petition and the application for the condonation of delay.

5. For what has been said above, the impugned order, date 19‑11‑1973 is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the revision is sent back to the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/ Notified Officer, Lahore for fresh decision in accordance with law after giving the parties opportunity of being heard I. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

H.B.T 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.