Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.449‑R of 1979, decided on 26th October, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 12‑‑Limitation, computation of‑‑Term "time requisite for obtaining the copy", connotation of‑‑For computing period of limitation, the day on which application for copy is made and the day on which such copy is obtained are both part of the "time requisite for obtaining the copy" and would be excluded therefrom. [wods and phrases]

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 12‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Where authority invested with revisional jurisdiction wrongly computed "time requisite for obtaining the copy" and dismissed revision, such order of dismissal was quashed by High Court in constitutional jurisdiction.

Muhammad Bakhsh for Petitioner.

Hafiz Muhammad Yousuf for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 20th, 26th October, 1986.

This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question orders dated 4‑4‑1979 and 28‑11‑1978 respectively passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Consolidation) /Administrator, Residual Urban Properties, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, and Deputy Administrator, Residual properties, Faisalabad.

2. The facts necessary for purposes of this petition briefly stated are that evacuee property bearing Khasra Nos. 285/15 and 287/17, Chak Jhumra, District Faisalabad was published in the list of properties available for purchase by auction and thereafter put to suction on 10‑6‑1960. The property was purchased by Noor Muhammad who surrendered his rights in favour of Abdul Sattar and Abdul Rahman, the predecessors‑in‑interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 9 and respondent No.10 through deed of association dated 13‑1‑1961. The P.T.D. in pursuance of the said auction was also issued to them on 5‑1‑1971. A mutation was also sanctioned in their favour which pertains to these two Khasra numbers only. There are four other adjoining Khasra numbers, viz. 286/16, 293/23, 294/24 and 295/25 which were owned by the same evacuee owners, namely Kundan Lal and brothers. The petitioner filed a form No.3981/32 seeking transfer of two of the aforementioned Khasra numbers, viz. 294/24 and 295/25 under the Residual Properties Scheme.

3. On 15‑4‑1978 respondent No.ll filed an application before the Deputy Administrator of Residual Properties claiming that two other Khasra numbers, viz. 295/21 and 293/23 be also added to the P.T.D. of Abdul Sattar etc. This appliction was made by him claiming to be a purchaser from Abdul Sattar. This application of the said respondent No.ll, namely, Syed Obaidullah Shah was rejected on 16‑9‑1978 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. However, the Deputy Administrator Residual Properties, Faisalabad, while disposing of the form of the petitioner held that he has applied for Khasra Nos. viz, 294/24 and 295/25 which could not be transferred to the petitioner as these had been already transferred to auction‑purchasers of Khasra Nos. 285/15 and 287/17. He also held that the form is belated.

4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved filed a revision before the Administrator Residual Properties which was dismissed as barred by time as it was filed with a delay of one day. The order of the Administrator, Residual Urban Properties, Sargodha Division, passed in revision is dated 4‑4‑1979. The petitioner being still dissatisfied has come up in the present writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions:‑

(1) That the order of respondent No.12 was not announced in the presence of the parties as is apparent from the last para thereof wherein it has been observed "inform the applicant accordingly." Notice of this order was issued to the petitioner on 2‑12‑1978, he applied for the copy of the same on 3‑12‑1978 which was provided to him on 5‑12‑1978 and the revision having been instituted on 20‑12‑1978 was within time, i.e, within 15 days and, therefore, it has been erroneously held by the learned respondent No.13 that revision before him was barred by time.

(2) That *the impugned order of Deputy Administrator, Residual Properties, respondent No.12 was also without jurisdiction in that the rejection of the petitioner's form on the basis of being belated is without any valid foundation.

(3) That the petitioner being in possession of the Khasra numbers in dispute, viz. 294/24, 295/25 which were neither transferred to Abdul Sattar and Abdul Rehman nor were ever claimed by them as such and not only that the same were not even claimed by respondent No.ll in his application made to the said officer and which was rejected on 16‑9‑1978, was entitled to the transfer of the said property under the Residual Properties Scheme.

(4) That the finding of the Deputy Administrator, Residual Properties, in his impugned order dated 28‑11‑1978 that the said Khasra stood transferred to Abdul Sattar and Abdul Rehman, the associates of the auction‑purchaser, is contradictory to his own finding in his order dated 16‑9‑1978 passed on the application of Syed Obaidullah Shah rejecting that plea.

6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for respondent No.ll only submitted that the auctioned property consisted of all the Khasra numbers owned by Kundan Lal and brothers as in auction list it is mentioned as "full property of Kundal Lal and brothers."

7. He in the same context submitted that Annexures R/7 and R/8 show that all the Khasra numbers were in possession of Mehr Shah and, therefore, all of them were put to auction. It was urged that the order of the Deputy Administrator being with jurisdiction merits to be upheld.

8. In reply the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Annexures "A" and "B" to the Writ Petition, viz. the copies of the auction proceedings and the P.T.D. clearly mention that only shops on Khasra numbers 285/15 and 287/17 were auctioned and transferred; that Annexure "C" shows that mutation in favour of Abdul Sattar and Abdul Rahman, respondents, was also in respect of these two Khasra numbers; that the other four Khasra numbers out of which the petitioner's claim is as regards two only, even in 1975‑76 stood in the name of the Federal Government and thus, in the evacuee pool per Annexure "D" and that Annexure "E" which is the copy of the assessment of the property, in fact, transferred to Abdul Sattar and Abdul Rehman also lends support to the above contentions of the petitioner.

9. Having given consideration to the controversy, I find that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner appear to have force, but in view of the position that I propose to remit this case to respondent No.13 for adjudication afresh for reasons to follow hereinafter, I would refrain for dilating on the contentions aforementioned lest it causes prejudice to any of the parties before the Officer who may become seized of the matter on remand. I suffice by observing that all these contentions did require due consideration and application of mind by the forums below which unfortunately has not been done.

10. Be that as it may, it is patent on the face of the record that the impugned order of respondent No.13 dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner as barred by time is wholly erroneous. The dates given by the learned counsel about the information of the passing of the impugned order, making of application by the petitioner, providing of copy of the impugned order to the petitioner and filing of the petition do tend to show that the revision had been filed within prescribed time. This being the admitted position even according to the impugned order of respondent No.13 dated 4‑4‑1979 that copy of the impugned order was applied for by the petitioner on 3‑12‑1978, i.e, the day next after his having been informed of the passing of the order to be revised against; that the copy had been made available to the petitioner on 5‑12‑1978 and that the revision was filed on 20‑12‑1978, the revision had been filed within 15 days if the period of limitation had been computed in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908. It is well settled that the day on which an application for copy is made and the day on which the copy is granted are both part of the time requisite for obtaining the copy and thus, the petitioner was entitled to have both these days excluded while computing the period of limitation. The above position of law does not appear to have been noticed by respondent No.13 while dismissing the revision petition as barred by time. The order of the learned respondent No.13, as of necessity, therefore, has to be held as without lawful authority and of no legal effect which would mean that the revision before him shall be deemed to be pending so as to be decided on merits.

11. In view of the foregoing, I would quash the impugned order of respondent No.13 dated 1‑4‑1979 and remit the case back to him for B adjudication of the revision of the petitioner in accordance with law.

There will, however, be no order as to costs.

H.B.T./717/L ‑‑‑‑ Order accordingly‑

Find a Lawyer Near You

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