Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Writ Petition no. 613/11 of 1978, 'decided on 14th December, 1985.
---Art. 9--Evidence, appreciation of--Conjectures and surmises--Findings based on--Effect of--Evidence produced by both parties found contradictory and not worthy of credit--No evidence for or against application on record--Authority drawing inference--Authority, held, should have conducted honest inquiry into matter to reach truth- Question could neither be left undecided nor decided without evidence nor disposed of on mere conjectures and surmises.
---Art. 9--Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2 (2)--Notified Officer--Functions of Persona designata--Notified Officer, held, was persona designata and the moment he would dispose of applicant pending immediately before repeal of Act (XLVII of 1958), he would become functus officio--Matters pending should be disposed of finally, piecemeal disposal was unwarranted by law--Case remanded for fresh disposal in circumstances.
Ch. Habib Ullah Khan for Petitioner.
A.R. Shaukat for Respondents Nos. 1 to 6.
Nemo for Respondent No. 7.
Date of hearing: 14th December, 1985.
This writ petition is directed against the order of an Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands)/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab at Gujranwala, dated 6-5-1978 purporting to cancel the land allotted in the name of Bhobat and mutated in the name of his alleged daughter Mst. Rasoolan.
2. Having gone through the record as well as the impugned order, it is apparent that the learned Notified Officer has given an unequivocal finding that both the sets of witnesses who appeared for the petitioner as well as the respondents were contradictory and destructive of each other's testimony and they were not worthy of credit. This means that there was no evidence for or against the application or the allegations being levelled therein. In such a situation, it is very difficult to appreciate how the Notified Officer could draw inferences when he is surely not receiving premonition. The further view of the Notified Officer that non-production of Mst. Rasoolan was a circumstance warranting adverse inference can also not be sustained because in the same breath he has held Ibrahim to be the husband of Mst. Rasoolan.
3. Even going by the views of the learned Notified Officer it behaved him to conduct an honest inquiry into the matter and maTce a visible effort to reach the truth. This incidence of condition and qualification is attached to exercise of all public powers when dealing with the' rights of citizens that the questions cannot be either left undecided or decided without evidence or a matter disposed of by mere conjectures and surmises. This is what appears to have been done in the facts ands circumstances of this case.
4. A further feature which has been brought to the notice of this Court at the hearing today is that while purporting to cancel the land from the same of Bhobat the land has been allotted to the clients of Haji A.R. Shaukat, Advocate when there is no finding in their favour to be either of informers or having pending claim or units and left matters to be decided subsequently. I am afraid, a Notified Officer is a persona designata and the moment he has disposed of an application which. was pending immediately before the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, he becomes funetus officio. This inference will also follow from a plain reading of section 2 of Act XIV of 1975 which ordains that the matters which were pending before the repeal of the Act shall be disposed of finally. A piecemeal disposal is otherwise unwarranted in law.
5. Nothing said by me in this order is to be construed to be prejudicial to either party because this case warrants that the impugned order for the faults listed above ought to be set aside and the case remanded to the learned Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing), Punjab, Lahore for fresh disposal by a Notified Officer after due application of his mind to all the material facts and circumstances of the case and giving the parties a fair opportunity to prove their respective contentions. Order accordingly. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.
S.A. Case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer