Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Syed MUJTABA AHMED VS Respondent: CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB
1988 M L D 475
1988 M L D 475
[Lahore]
Before Irshad Hasan Khan, J
Syed MUJTABA AHMED and others‑‑Petitioners
versus
CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB and others‑‑Respondents
Writ Petition No. 48‑R of 1982, decided on 20th March, 1983.
Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art 9‑‑Scrutiny of Claims (Evacuee Property) Regulation, 1961 (M.L.R. 84/89), para. 3(3)‑‑Issue of entitlement certificate‑‑Petitioner after his claim having been verified by Deputy Claims Commissioner submitting application for issue of Entitlement Certificate which was refused on ground that petitioner failed to comply with provisions of M.L.R No. 84‑‑Contention that claim of petitioner being not verified prior to 1st September 1961, Entitlement Certificate as such should have been issued on basis of claim verified by Deputy Claims Commissioner under para. 4 read with para. 6 (3) of M.L.R. 89‑‑Held, since petitioner failed to file statement of true facts within stipulated period, original claim stood cancelled by virtue of para. 3 (3) of M.L.R. 84 and same cannot be said as pending within ambit of para. 4 of M.L.R. 89 merely because Deputy Claims Commissioner verified claim subsequent to enforcement of M.L.R. 89‑‑Order of verification being without lawful authority petitioner cannot be permitted to claim advantage under same in exercise of writ jurisdiction‑‑Issue of Entitlement Certificate declined.
Ch. Oamar‑ud‑Din Khan Meo for Petitioners. Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for Respondents.
JUDGMENT
This petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, seeks a direction to the respondents for the issuance of entitlement certificate in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 19‑5‑1979 of the Deputy Claims Commissioner, Lahore.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioners filed claim for the verification of the property left by them in India. It was dismissed for default. The petitioners' application for restoration of the claim was also dismissed. On appeal, the Additional Claims Commissioner by his order dated 23rd November, 1959, accepted the claim of Mst. Hasan Bano, Mst. Kishwar Jahan and Salimuddin, who are stated to be the relatives of the petitioners. The claim of the petitioners was however, rejected. They filed a ~, review petition, which was stated to be untraceable. Thereafter, they filed W.P. 819/1967, which was disposed of by order dated 9‑11‑1907, with the direction that the Claims Commissioner shall proceed to re‑construct the record and dispose of the petitioners' application in accordance with law. Consequently, the Claims Commissioner, Lahore, by order dated 13‑2‑1971. (photostat copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure `B' remanded the case to the Additional Commissioner for decision on merits. In pursuance of the remand order, the Additional Claims Commissioner instead of disposing of the case himself further remanded the case to the Deputy Claims Commissioner by order dated 25‑3‑1978, for decision on merits. Eventually the Deputy Claims Commissioner, by order dated 19‑5‑1979, verified claim of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted an application on 11‑10‑1979, to respondent No.l for the issue of the entitlement certificate. The same was refused on the ground that the petitioners have failed to comply with the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 84.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the claim of the petitioners was not verified prior to 1st September, 1961, therefore, the entitlement certificate should have been issued on the basis of the claim verified by the Deputy Claims Commissioner under para 4 read with para 6 (3) of Martial Law Regulation No. 89.
4. The contention is devoid of any force. The petitioners admittedly failed to file statement of true facts relating to their claim within the stipulated period, as such their original claim stood cancelled by virtue of sub‑paragraph (3) of paragraph 3 of Martial Law Regulation No. 84 and therefore, it cannot be said that any claim was legally pending within the ambit of paragraph 4 of Martial Law Regulation No. 89, merely because the Deputy Claims Commissioner verified the claim of the petitioners subsequent to the enforcement of Martial Law Regulation No. 89. The claim of the petitioners stood cancelled by operation of law under the aforesaid provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 84. This was a transaction past and closed. The Deputy Claims Commissioner, had, therefore, no jurisdiction in law to verify the claim of the petitioners notwithstanding the: failure of the petitioners to comply with the mandatory provisions of paragraph 3 i (3) of Martial Law Regulation No. 84. The order of verification of claim is ex face without lawful authority and therefore, the petitioners cannot be permitted to claim advantage under it m the exercise of writ jurisdiction; which is meant to foster justice and not to perpetuate an illegality. Furthermore, Martial Law Regulation 91, by which Martial Law Regulation No. 89 was further modified on 29th September, 1961, specifically provides that the entitlement of those claimants shall be treated nil who have not submitted the written statements under paragraph No. 3 of the original Regulation i.e Martial Law Regulation No. 84.
In view of the above, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
M.Y.H./2516/L ??????????
Petition dismissed.