Find a Lawyer

Petition No.211/R of 1979, decided on 15th February, 1986.

Art.199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Finding of fact recorded by Tribunal, held, could not be reopened in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.

‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Remand order made in 1974 not challenged by petitioner‑‑Petitioner participating in proceedings following said remand order‑‑Held, would be, too late for petitioner to challenge legality of said order n constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.

‑‑Art.199‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Estoppel by conduct‑‑Competency of Settlement Authority to take proceedings challenged‑‑Estoppel‑‑Where proceedings were taken on application of petitioners by Settlement Authorities, plea of bar of jurisdiction, held, would not be available to such petitioner subsequently‑‑Constitutional petition being devoid of merit was dismissed by High Court.‑‑[ Estoppel].

M. Bashir Chaudhry for Petitioners.

Qazi Iftikhar Ahmad for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 15th February, 1986.

Respondent No.2 is the transferee of the residential portion of a property, situate in Anarkali, Lahore. Two shops form part of the property. They were not transferred to him but were separately put to auction. One of the shops was purchased by a woman by the name of Mst. Nazir Begum. In this writ petition I am not concerned with the shop purchased by her. The other shop was purchased by Mst. Khairun Nissa, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners. There is a small store in the property. The case of the petitioners is that the said store formed part of the‑ shop purchased by Mst. Khairun Nissa. Their claim is disputed by respondent No.2.

2. On the application of the petitioners a Settlement Inspector visited the property in question and prepared a site plan. In this site plan the store was shown as part of the shop transferred to their predecessor‑in‑interest. A Deputy Settlement Commissioner appended his signatures on this site plan. Respondent No.2 filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner. His case was that the demarcation of the property had been carried out without giving him any opportunity of being heard. By his order, dated 25‑5‑1974, the Settlement Commissioner set aside the proceedings taken by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and sent the file back to him for recording a fresh decision after giving both parties an opportunity of being heard. After the order of the Settlement Commissioner the matter came up before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who had apparently been appointed as a notified officer under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner heard both the parties and by an elaborate order, dated 25‑10‑1978 held that the store in dispute did not form part of the shop transferred to Mst. Khairun Nissa. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner through this constitutional petition.

3. The question whether the store in question formed part of the shop or not is one of fact. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner considered all the material facts and then came to the conclusion that it did not form part of the shop. His finding in this regard cannot be reopened in writ jurisdiction.

4. In support of this writ petition it is contended that the Settlement Commissioner was not competent to set aside the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and remand the case. It may be mentioned that the Settlement Commissioner had made his order on 25‑5‑1974. The petitioners did not care to challenge it. In fact they participated in the proceedings which followed the said order. It is, therefore, too late for them now to challenge the lagality of the said order. The took the chance of obtaining a favourable decision from him. After having failed to do so they cannot now take the position that they proceedings before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner were not competent. It is also contended that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, who made the impugned order, had no jurisdiction in the matter as the property was no longer in the compensation pool. This argument is again without any merit, for, the proceedings were taken by the Settlement Authorities on the application of the petitioners themselves.

5. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed with costs.

A. A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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