Sh. MEHDI HASSAN vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Member, Board of Revenue and 5 others

' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.- This petition under Article 188 of the Constitution has been filed seeking review of the judgment, dated 29-5-2003 passed in Civil Appeal No,169 of 1998.

2. The claim of the petitioner in the appeal was that the evacuee plot measuring 6 Kanals, 20 Marlas and 120 square feet situated at Gondal Bus Adda Larian, Chakwal was put to auction, which was purchased by him for Rs,80,000 out of which an amount of Rs,60,000 was adjusted through surrender of compensation book vide association deed dated 12-8-1963 and balance of Rs,20,000 was yet to be paid whereas the department vide letter dated 6-5-1968 required the petitioner to deposit the sale price of the plot failing which the auction would be cancelled and despite bringing it to the notice of the department that the sale price to the tune of Rs,60,000 was paid by adjustment of compensation book, the department without giving any notice of cancellation of the auction transferred the property to private respondents (Nos.3 to 5) and issued PTO in their name.

After repeal of the evacuee laws the petitioner approached Member, Board of Revenue exercising the power of Notified Officer under the repealing Act, 1975, but the Notified Officer vide order dated 30-9-1996 declined to interfere in the matter for want of jurisdiction and in consequence thereto, he filed a constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which was dismissed with observation that the disputed question Of facts could not be resolved in the writ petition. The leave was granted in this appeal vide order, dated 9-1-1998 as under:-- "After examination of the documents placed on the record-by the petitioner, we are of the view that in this case, the Chief Settlement Commission failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him to entrust the case of the petitioner to Notified Officer for disposal. The question whether the proceedings regarding auction of the plot in favor of the petitioner had been finally decided either by calling upon the petitioner to pay the balance amount of consideration and on his failure to do so, the auction of the same in his favor was cancelled by the Competent Authority in accordance with law on the happening of which the property could become available for further disposal and if no order for the cancellation of the auction of the plot in favor of petitioner had been passed, the same was a case of pending proceedings which were to be disposed of by the Notified Officer in accordance with the Settlement Laws as they stood before their repeal had arisen in this ease and we grant leave to appeal to consider these questions."

4. (sic) The essential question requiring determination in appeal would firstly relate to the exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Chief Settlement Commissioner as Notified Officer, secondly the annulment of the auction of the plot in favor of the petitioner for non-payment of price and thirdly whether the property was available for transfer after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws or not. The question would also be posed whether the matter would fall within the definition of "pending proceedings" after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws. This Court after hearing learned counsel for the: parties held in para. 4 of the judgment under review as under:-- "This is an admitted fact, that the record relating to the auction of the property was not available and except the endorsement regarding the auction of the plot and the deposit of a portion of sale price made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Jhelum there was no proof of the auction and part payment of sale price by the appellants so much so the compensation book was not traceable. There was also no evidence about the existence of the documents on the basis of which the appellant asserted his claim and mere endorsement of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the reply of the appellant to the notice would not be sufficient to establish his claim and that in absence of any such evidence, it is difficult for us to accept that endorsement made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was based on original, record and it represented correct factual position."

5. The appeal was dismissed with the conclusion as under:-- "In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find that appellant has not been able to bring on record any evidence in proof of a valid sale for issue of transfer order. The property undoubtedly was transferred before the repeal of Evacuee Laws and being not available for transfer under the repealing Act, the contention of the learned counsel regarding non-exercise of jurisdiction by the Notified Officer has no substance. Be that as it may, since the appellant has not been able to establish the existence of a valid sale through auction, we need not to go into any other question."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner having traced out the history of the case with reference to the certain documents brought on the record sought review of the judgment mainly on the ground that the learned Judge in the High Court without considering the documents in 'question, dismissed the writ petition, and asserted that these documents were also available on the file of appeal before this Court but the same escaped the notice of the Court.

7. Mr. Gulzarin Kiani, learned Advocate Supreme Court representing the contesting respondents has submitted that review jurisdiction is limited, the scope of which cannot be enlarged to reopen or reargue the case on merits and seriously raising the objection to the authenticity' of the documents being relied upon, contended that these documents cannot be looked into at this stage. He submitted that in any case the transfer of property in the name of respondents was not questionable after repeal of Evacuee Laws and neither the property was available nor there was any pending proceedings in respect of the property before the Settlement Authorities, therefore, Notified Officer had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter.

8. We having heard the learned counsel for the Parties at length and perused the record with their assistance have found that the contentions raised by the learned counsel in support of this petition have been exhaustively dealt with in the judgment under review. This is settled law that the points already raised and considered before the Court, cannot be re-agitated in review jurisdiction which is confined to the extent of patent error or a mistake floating on the face of record which if not corrected may perpetuate illegality and injustice. The mere fact that another view of the matter was possible or the conclusion drawn in the judgment was wrong, would not be a valid ground to review the judgment unless it is shown that the Court has failed to consider an important question of law. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any such error of law in the judgment or interference in the review jurisdiction.

9. In the light of foregoing reasons, this review hereby dismissed. Leave is refused.