Find a Lawyer

Review Application No. 36 of 1980 in Writ Petition No. 270‑R of 1975, and Civil Miscellaneous No.530 of 1985, heard on 19th April 1986.

‑‑S. 114 & O.XLVII, R.1‑‑Review‑‑High Court decided writ petition on basis of arder of Rehabilitation Authority which order had already been set aside by Settlement Authority in exercise of revisional jurisdiction‑‑Very basis of decision of High Court having been proved to be untenable, order passed by High Court, held, could be recalled in circumstances.

Sh. Abdul Aziz for, Petitioners.

.

A.R. Shaukat and Ghulam Mahmood Qureshi for Respondents Nos.1 to 13.

Malik Muhammad Nawaz for Respondents in Civil Miscellaneous

Date of hearing: 19th April 1986.

This is an application for review of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 270‑R of 1975 on 12‑3‑1980 whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that there was a favourable order in favour of the respondents by the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 6‑5‑1965. In this petition it is pointed out that this order, dated 6‑5‑1965 of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner had been set aside by the Settlement Commissioner, vide order, dated 30‑5‑1966. In Civil Miscellaneous No. 530 of 1985 it is pointed out that the said respondents had challenged the later order, dated 30‑5‑1966 through Writ Petition No. 489‑R. of 1967 which was dismissed on 23‑10‑1967 and their Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1 of 1968 was dismissed by the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan on 31‑5‑1968.

2. It is contended on behalf of the writ petitioners and the applicants that the order passed by this Court on 12‑3‑1980 in Writ Petition No. 270‑R/75 should be recalled because that had been passed on the basis of an order in favour of the respondents, dated 6‑5‑1965 of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner which order had already been set aside by the Settlement Commissioner vide order, dated 30‑5‑1966 and, therefore, there was no basis to pass the order, dated 12‑3‑1980.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently contended that the order of the Settlement Commissioner, dated 30‑5‑1966 by which the order of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated 6‑5‑1965 was set aside did not have any effect on the proceedings in the writ petition.

4. Whether the order of the Settlement Commissioner, dated 30‑5‑1966 has any effect on the decision of the writ petition or not, is not relevant at the moment. The relevant thing is that the basis of the order in Writ Petition No. 270‑11/75 passed tin 12‑3‑1980 was that the respondents allotment had been restored vide order of the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated 6‑5‑1965 and that held the field. Now it transpires that it had clearly been set aside in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Settlement Commissioner vide order, dated 30‑5‑1966. Therefore, the very basis of the order having been proved to be untenable, the order passed by me clearly requires recall and 11 hereby so order. The result is that the writ petition shall be heard again and decided on merits. It appears that the land in dispute is situated in Multan District under the jurisdiction of the Multan Bench. Therefore, the petition should be sent there for hearing on merits. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

H. B. T. Application 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.