Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD AHSAN KHAN
1988 S C M R 229
1988 S C M R 229
Present: Nasim Hasan Shah and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ
MUHAMMAD SHARIF--Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD AHSAN KHAN and others--Respondents
Civil Petition No.782 of 1986, decided on 24th November, 1987.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 6-7-1986 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.366-R/1981).
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)--
---S.10 & Sched.--Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XI V of 1975) , S.3--Dispute over validity of deed of Association--High Court holding order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner as bad in law since his powers stood withdrawn and that after repeal of evacuee laws, he had no jurisdiction to reopen the case and accord a declaration in 1978--No ground for interference with order of High Court made out--Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court and Mian Ata-ur-Rehman, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
S.M.Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 24th November, 1987.
ORDER
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The question whether an association deed executed between the contesting parties was a valid and subsisting instrument or it stood vitiated by fraud and could not, therefore, be enforced in law, as held by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 28-7-1980, was raised before the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.
The learned Judge of the High Court held that the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 28-7-1980 was bad in law as he had no jurisdiction to decide the matter on the date on which he passed his order (namely on 28-7-1980) since his powers in the relevant respect stood withdrawn before that date. It was also held that after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, in any case, had no jurisdiction to re-open the case and accord a declaration on a miscellaneous application moved before him in 1978. The above determination of the High Court is challenged by this petition for leave to appeal.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at great length and agree with the High Court that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order dated 28-7-1980 was not a valid and proper order in the eye of law and the dispute raised before him could, at this stage, be settled only by approaching the Civil Court.
No ground for interference with the order of the High Court is made out. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed accordingly.
S . Q . / M-267/ S Petition dismissed.