Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: IQBAL LATIF VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD ASLAMHonorable Justice Malik Muhammad QayyumCh. Abdul Razzak,Hamid Ali Mirza
1992 C L C 320
1992 C L C 320
[Lahore]
Before Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J
IQBAL LATIF and others‑‑‑Petitioners
versus
MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others‑‑‑Respondents
Writ Petition No.169‑R of 1977, heard on 16th July, 1991.
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 20‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Revision could only be decided after calling for record of case‑‑‑Additional Settlement Commissioner was in error in proceeding to dispose of revision without having record of the case before him.
Ch. Abdul Razzak for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent No.1.
Hamid Ali Mirza for Respondent No.2.
Date of hearing: 16th July, 1991.
JUDGMENT
This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, calls in question the order of the Addl. Settlement Commissioner dated 23rd September, 1976, whereby he set aside the order of resumption of the property in, dispute passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the revision filed by the petitioners was decided by the Addl. Settlement Commissioner in the absence of the record of the case, in violation of the provisions of section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1950. This plea finds support from the impugned order itself, in which it has been mentioned that the "relevant record of the lower Court which was submitted to the H.Qr. Office (Writ Branch) was not forthcoming despite many a letter sent for the purpose" and the case was being decided on the basis of the documents produced by the parties.
3. Under section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, a revision can only be decided after calling for the record of the case. The Addl. Settlement Commissioner was, therefore, clearly in error in proceeding to dispose of the revision without having the record before him. Both the learned counsel state that the record of the case is now available. That being so, the case has to be remanded to the Addl. Settlement Commissioner/notified officer, for decision of the revision filed by the petitioners afresh, on merits, after perusing the record.
4. For the reasons aforesaid, this petition is allowed and the order of the Addl. Settlement Commissioner dated 23rd of September, 1976 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, with the result that the revision petition filed by the petitioners shall be deemed to be pending and shall be disposed of by a notified officer of competent jurisdiction. The case is sent back to the Board of Revenue which shall entrust it to a notified officer for disposal. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
H.B.T./1‑281/L Petition allowed.