Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.8/R of 1987, decided on 14th June, 1987.

---S.2--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 Demarcation of property after repeal of Settlement Laws--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Application for demarcation of property made to Settlement Authorities after repeal of Settlement Laws is not competent--Order of Settlement Authorities dismissing such application for want of jurisdiction could not be interfered with in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.

Islam Ali Qureshi for Petitioner.

The petitioner claims to have been transferred the Evacuee Residual plot under the Settlement Laws. It is alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 2 had illegally occupied a portion of the said plot, therefore, he was entitled to dispossess him for which he previously filed a suit against respondent No.2 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jampur which was dismissed on 14-4-1985. The petitioner filed appeal against the said order in the Court of District Judge, Jampur in which compromise was effected between the petitioner and respondent No.2 which was oral and to the effect that the property shall be got demarcated from the competent authority. The petitioner made statement before the said Court that if the Settlement Department demarcated the property he would withdraw the appeal. The District Judge vide his order dated 7-12-1985 dismissed the appeal with the dictum that Settlement Department shall demarcate property in dispute. The petitioner made an application on 12-12-1985 to the Additional Commissioner Dera Ghazi Khan, in his capacity as Deputy Settlement Commissioner/Deputy Administrator Residual Property for Rajanpur and D. G. Khan Districts for demarcation of petitioner's property No.121 as directed by learned District Judge: This application was still pending when respondent No.2 filed a Civil Revision No.33 of 1986 in this Court against the said order of District Judge dated 7-12-1985 which was disposed of by this Court on 15-1-1986 with observation that no interference was called for in revisional jurisdiction as the present petitioner withdrew the appeal unconditionally and any observation by the District Judge regarding demarcation of property by Settlement Authority would riot confer jurisdiction on Settlement Authorities because the jurisdiction is always conferred by statute itself. In these circumstances, it was also observed that if and when an application for demarcation was made by the present petitioner it should be decided in accordance with law and without being influenced by the aforesaid direction by the District Judge. The respondent No. 2 objected. to the proceedings initiated by the petitioner for demarcation as stated earlier on the ground that no jurisdiction was vested in respondent No.1, the property having gone out of Compensation Pool having been transferred to the respective parties which objection was upheld by respondent No.1 and it declined to demarcate the property by order dated 7-4-1986 and the petitioner was directed to approach the Revenue Department.

2. The said order dated 7-4-1986 of respondent No.1 has been challenged in this writ petition. The comments were called for which have been received. It has been stated in the comments that the property stood transferred permanently to parties and P.T.Ds. have also been issued. It has also been stated that the Settlement Laws stood repealed since 1974, therefore, the Settlement authorities who were concerned with the pending residual work did not have jurisdiction to entertain any fresh proceedings of any nature therefore the application of the petitioner was turned down.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who submitted that since the statement before District Judge was made in pursuance of an oral agreement between petitioner and respondent No.2 that the petitioner shall get the demarcation from Settlement Department and on this basis the appeal was withdrawn and the District Judge also having directed the Settlement Department to demarcate the property therefore, respondent No.2 could not object to the demarcation if carried out by respondent No.1 on the application of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the respondent No.2 was estopped from raising, any such objection. It has also been argued that in view of the direction of the District Judge the Settlement Department had the jurisdiction to demarcate the property. I am afraid, I have not been able to persuade myself to accept these contentions which have no force. It has been clarified by this Court in revision petition No.33 of 1980, filed- by respondent No.2 against the said order of District Judge that ;the jurisdiction on the Settlement Authorities can be conferred by statute and it was held that objection to the jurisdiction to demarcate the property of respondent No.1 could be raised by the respondent No.2. In this view of the matter, the order of District Judge stood modified and the question of jurisdiction of respondent No.1 to demarcate the property was left open to be decided in accordance with law. The contention of the learned counsel that respondent No.1 was empowered to demarcate the property in pursuance of order of District Judge dated 7-12-1987 has no force. The said order having been passed not as a decision on the question of jurisdiction of respondent No.1 but on the statement of petitioner himself and therefore could not be taken to have invested respondent No.1 with the powers to demarcate the property where under the law it had none. The Evacuee and Settlement of Laws were those which were pending before the Settlement Authorities. The application for demarcation was made on 12-12-1985 admittedly after the repeal of the Settlement Laws and admittedly there was no matter pending before the Settlement Authorities before repeal of Settlement Laws regarding demarcation of the property therefore the respondent No.1 did not have the jurisdiction to demarcate the property in dispute and the application of the petitioner in that behalf was rightly declined. The respondent No.1 has not acted illegally or without lawful authority in passing the impugned order. The writ petition has no merits which is hereby dismissed in limine. Anyhow, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the matter if he is so advised under the ordinary law by filing the civil suit to obtain the relief in this respect.

H.B.T./ W-10/ L 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.