Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1074-R of 1974, decided on 7th December,1985.

---S. 20--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5--Time-barred revision petition--Extension of time--Discretion of Settlement Authority--To extend or not to extend time on application under S.5 of Limitation Act was within discretion of Settlement Authority--Revision filed by petitioner before Settlement Authority being barred by time and delay in filing such revision found to be intentional--Revision, held, was rightly dismissed by Settlement Authority in circumstances.

---Art. 199--Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.20--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5--Dismissal of time-barred revision--Investigation of factual matter--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Settlement Authorities being fully entitled to dismiss time-barred revision, dismissed same taking into consideration facts and circumstances of case without flouting provisions of relevant law--There being no jurisdictional defect and decision of Settlement Authorities being based on sound reasons, High Court refused to investigate matters of fact in constitutional jurisdiction.

Syed Zainul Abdin and Ch. Muhammad Sarwar for Petitioners.

Sh. Anwarul Haq for Respondents.

Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Settlement Department.

Date of hearing: 7th December, 1985.

Through this Constitutional Petition, Lal Muhammad and 4 other petitioners, want this Court to declare the resumption order, dated 12-10-1967, subsequent transfer of the property, dated 26-7-1972 and order, dated 29-4-1974 of Additional Settlement Commissioner, respondent No. 2 passed in revision, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The dispute relates to the transfer of shop bearing Property No. S.36-R-99 (A), Railway Road, Lahore. The petitioner's case is that the disputed shop is in the possession of Messrs Kh. Riaz Akhtar, Zia-ul-Islam & Bros., respondent No. 1. Since they being local were ineligible for its transfer, so the shop was put to auction on 12-12-1960. One Mian Nazir Ahmad offered highest bid of Rs.62,100 which was also confirmed, therefore, P.T.0. was issued in his name. After the purchase of the shop, Mian Nazir Ahmad surrendered his full rights in shop in favour of Gulzar Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners on 29-4-1963 through agreement which was approved by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, respondent No. 3 on 8-6-1963. Gulzar Muhammad paid the entire price through his own and 3 others compensation books. Despite complete adjustment, respondent No. 3 issued demand notice on 16-12-1965 and thereafter vide order, dated 12-10-1967 resumed the shop from the name of Gulzar Muhammad on account of failure to pay the sale price of the property. On 21-10-1967, Messrs Kh. Riaz Akhtar, Zia-ul-Islam & Bros., respondent No. 1, the local occupant, filed L.S. Form for the transfer of shop to them. The D.S.C., respondent No. 3 vide order, dated 26-7-1972 transferred the property to them. On coming to know of this order, the petitioners filed appeal which was treated as revision and dismissed by Additional Settlement Commissioner, respondent No. 2, as barred by time on 29-4-1974, hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the revision having been filed within reasonable time from the knowledge of the order impugned therein, was not barred by time; that Gulzar Muhammad had paid the entire price of the shop and as such, the same could not have been resumed on account of default; that on 16-12-1966 a bogus notice of demand was prepared by the D.S.C., respondent No. 3 and was served at the address of the shop at Lahore, although the transferee was resident of Sukkur and that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, has resumed the land mala fide and without examining the record of the transfer of the shop. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned orders.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that the appeal which was treated as revision was admittedly barred by time, therefore, application for the extension of time under section 5 of the Limitation Act was given by the petitioner; that it was within the discretion of Additional Settlement Commissioner, respondent No. 2 to extend the time or not; that the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, respondent No. 2 after having taken into account the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act and the facts and circumstances of the case dismissed the revision as barred by time for good reasons. In the last para of the judgment, he has said:

"By weighing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties,

I find that the petitioners have challenged the order of resumption and not the order of transfer made in favour of the respondent. The petitioners have admitted in their application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act that they came to know of the resumption order on 8-12-1972 but they applied for the copy of the impugned order on 14-3-1973 i.e. after the expiry of more than three months from the date of knowledge as alleged by the petitioners. In view of this situation of the case, I hold that the revision is badly barred by time and the delay occurred in filing the revision is intentional. On merits the petitioners have no case because they are defaulter and default can only be wiped out within 30 days from the date of cancellation. The revision is without any substance and barred by time which is hereby rejected."

The learned counsel has not been able to controvert the aforesaid observations. I also do not see any reason to disagree with the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, respondent No. 2. The submissions made by the learned counsel also require investigation which cannot be done by this Court while sitting in Constitutional jurisdiction. The learned O.S.C. and Additional Settlement Commissioner have given sound reasons in support of their decisions. They have not flouted the provisions of the relevant law and have decided the matter in accordance with the case law laid down by the Superior Courts. The order dismissing the revision as barred by time was within the entitlement of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and does not suffer from any jurisdictional defect.

5. For what has been said above, there being no merit, the petition is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

H . B . T . Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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