Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1367‑R of 1975, decided on 1st February, 1986.

‑‑‑S.20‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2(2)‑‑Settlement Scheme No. VIII‑‑Revisional jurisdiction of Settlement Commissioner after repeal of Evacuee Laws‑ Scope of‑‑Revision having been filed before Settlement Commissioner after repeal of Evacuee Laws and petition for revision being not pending on date of repeal of such laws, held, could not be heard and adjudicated upon by Settlement Commissioner who had ceased to exist under new dispensation.

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Settlement Scheme No. VIII, para. 2‑‑Transfer of evacuee property‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Settlement Authority by making no proper judicial determination of petitioner's entitlement to plot‑in‑dispute refused its transfer to petitioner by non‑speaking order‑‑Such improper order of Settlement Authority based on no grounds of refusal, was struck down by High Court as having been passed without lawful authority in circumstances.

Syed Sardar Shah Bokhary for Petitioner.

M. Z. Barki for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 1st February, 1986.

Dispute between the parties, out of which this petition, in constitutional jurisdiction has arisen, relates to back portion of erstwhile Evacuee Property Survey No.75 Ward No.6‑H Gali Patran Wali, Multan city. Except for the portion now in dispute, rest of the property has since been transferred to various claimants, which fact was no longer in dispute. Treating the disputed property, as available property, petitioner applied to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Multan for its transfer. One Hakeem Noor Ahmad also emerged on the scene and claimed the transfer of the plot in dispute. Forms were entertained by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Multan and after some enquiry, it was found by him that the claimants were not entitled to the transfer of plot and the same was placed in "Pool". It appears, Hakeem Noor Ahmad did not agitate the matter further and felt content with the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Multan. However, Muhammad Ishaque preferred a Revision in the Court of learned Settlement Commissioner, Multan on 12‑9‑1975, which was dismissed on the short ground that no revisional jurisdiction was available after repeal of Evacuee Laws with effect from 1‑7‑1974. Learned Settlement Commissioner found that it was not a "pending case". Aggrieved of the order, petitioner invoked constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, with prayer that the order made by the learned Settlement Commissioner be set aside and be also declared to have been passed without lawful authority. This petition raises two points:‑

(1) Whether revisional jurisdiction could be availed of after repeal of Evacuee laws

(2) If not, whether the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner disposing of the petitioner's form without properly determining the entitlement ‑to have transfer of plot by a judicially speaking order, could be sustained

As regards the first, admittedly, revision was filed after the Evacuee laws had been repealed and the petition for revision being not pending on 1‑7‑1974, could not be heard and adjudicated upon by the learned Settlement Commissioner who had ceased to exist under the new dispensation. Therefore, I have no hesitation .to say that the revision was not competently filed. However, learned counsel for the petitioner was on a much stronger ground when he urged that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had made no proper judicial determination of the petitioner's entitlement to the plot‑in‑dispute. Contention raised, on this score, could not be lightly ignored. As observed above, petitioner claimed transfer of plot under Scheme No. VIII. On a clear reading of the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, it becomes apparent that no reasons had been given by him to refuse transfer of plot to the petitioner. In the absence of proper reasons, grounds for refusal cannot be ascertained. Impugned order, is therefore, struck down and is declared to have been made without lawful authority. In the result, form submitted by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending requiring its fresh disposal in accordance with law. Petition is allowed, case is remitted to the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner (General)/ Deputy Administrator (Residual) Property, where the parties have been directed to appear on 13‑2‑1986. In the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs of this petition.

H.B.T.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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