Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 512 of 1976, decided on 29th October, 1985.

---8. 20--Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2(2)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199- Revisional jurisdiction of Settlement Authority--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Discretion exercised by Settlement Authority for condoning delay in filing revision petition under S.20 of Act (XXVIII of 1958), held, could not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court particularly when revisional jurisdiction was not exercised in arbitrary manner by Settlement Authority.

Iftikhar Ahmad for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 29th October, 1985.

Chamba petitioner in this constitutional petition has called in question the order, dated 18-12-1975 of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, whereby the order of transfer passed in favour of the petitioner under Settlement Scheme No. VII was set aside and the case was remanded to the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) Phalia for processing the claim of the respondents.

2. The relevant facts briefly stated are that on an application made by the petitioner the Haveli in question was transferred to the petitioner vide order, dated 19-1-1968 of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner Phalia under Settlement Scheme No. VII. This transfer was assailed by Ghulam Nabi the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 3 by filing a revision petition on 15-3-1972. This revision petition was then accepted vide the impugned order, dated 18-12-1975 after condoning the delay and after taking note of the fact that the possession of the respondents was confirmed by the Halqa Patwari and that the respondents being Jammu and Kashmir refugees could not be deprived of the portion of the Haveli which was in their occupation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged these findings before me raising the plea that Rehmat Ali respondent was inducted into one room of the Haveli by the petitioner much after the date of transfer of the Haveli to the petitioner. It was pointed out that as per entries of the Khasra Girdawari (Annexure 'G'), Jamabandi (Annexure 'H') and the Electoral List (Annexure 'K') it stands established that Ghulam Nabi as well as his sons were not even residents of village Rukan where the Haveli in dispute is situated and as such it was wrongly asserted by Ghulam Nabi that he was in possession of the Haveli in question since 1947. Learned counsel also argued that neither Ghulam Nabi nor his sons the present respondents were in possession prior to the date of transfer and as such the observation made by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner that the Haveli a portion of which was in possession of Ghulam Nabi could not be transferred to Chamba petitioner was uncalled for. According to him even the discretion exercised while condoning the delay in filing the revision petition is arbitrary as no application seeking condonation of delay was filed.

3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. The plea that the delay in filing the revision petition could not be condoned is without merit. A request at the time of hearing of the revision petition was, however, made orally and the same was accepted by the learned Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner in the peculiar circumstances of the case. The order impugned in the revision petition was passed ex parte. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the discretion was exercised in an arbitrary manner. Be that as it may, the discretion exercised for condoning the delay cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction. On merits also, no case is made out for interference in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. The matter has been remanded by the learned Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner for processing and considering the claim of the respondents. No finding as such regarding the entitlement of either party was given. The pleas which are raised before me shall remain available to the petitioner. It is, however, obvious that in case the petitioner is successful in establishing that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 or their father came to occupy the Haveli as a licensee any time subsequent to the order of transfer made in favour of the petitioner, then the plea that the Haveli could not be transferred to the petitioner as the father of the respondents was the displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir will be of no consequence. The contentions raised do require holding of a thorough inquiry for determination of the respective pleas and as such remand order passed by the learned Settlement Commissioner requires no interference.

4, For the reasons given above I am not inclined to interfere in I the matter, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction. The matter thus stands remitted to the notified officer who is directed to decide the same after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.

H.B.T. Writ refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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