Syed ALI MUMAMMAD (REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS) Versus SETTLEMENT
This civil appeal by special leave arises from a long-standing property dispute concerning the transfer of land measuring 36 kanals and 5 marlas. The core legal question was whether an alleged time-bar in filing an appeal against an initial allotment order vitiates subsequent revisional proceedings and remand orders that culminated in a final transfer order in favor of the respondents. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner's revisional jurisdiction to examine the legality or propriety of proceedings is not circumscribed by any limitation of time, particularly when exercised suo motu, and that a party who submits to remand proceedings and takes a chance on a decision cannot later challenge the remand order on the ground of limitation. The key principles laid down are that revisional powers are not bound by strict limitation periods and that submission to remand proceedings operates as a waiver against challenging the validity of such remand.
- Whether the revisional jurisdiction of a Settlement Commissioner is circumscribed by any limitation of time?
- What is the effect of submitting to remand proceedings on a party's right to challenge the initial remand order on the ground of limitation?
- Does an alleged time-bar in an appeal vitiate subsequent revisional proceedings and an ultimate allotment order?
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.---It is not necessary to go into the lengthy details of the stages through which the litigation between the parties passed and it will be sufficient for our purpose to state that on the settlement side, the Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 29-5-1965, ultimately directed transfer of the land in dispute measuring 36 kanals and 5 marlas, located in Village Tahlian Dehati, Tehsil and District Rawalpindi, to respondent No. 2 herein (Syed Mubarak Ali Shah).
2. The appellants filed a writ petition being W. P. 1545-R/65, but without any success as the same was dismissed on 8-12-1965.
3 The appellant filed an Intra-Court Appeal being L. P. A. No. 8 of 1966 which also met the-same fate and was dismissed on 13-2.1969.
4. The appellants have come up to this Court by special leave which was granted on 27-2-1970, to consider only the effect of the appeal of the respon--dents being allegedly time-barring against the original allotment under in favour of the appellants dated 15-12-1959, and the consequent order passed in first revision on 8-6-1961 whereby the case was remanded and in the ensuing proceedings ultimately and again in revision was decided in favour of the respondents on 29-5- 1965.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, but we are of the opinion that assuming, without conceding, or deciding, that the appeal: of the respondents was time-barred against order dated 15-12-1969, the same would not make any difference to the ultimate allotment order dated 29-5-1965 of the Settlement Commissioner who passed the same in his revisional jurisdiction which authorised him to call for the record of any case and examine the propriety or legality of the relevant proceedings and orders, etc. Assailed before him. His jurisdiction in this respect was not circumscribed by any limitation of time if he at all chose to exercise the same or to proceed with any case for example in his suo motu jurisdiction. This was so held by this Court in Pir Muhammad Farid Jan v. Colonization Officer, Sukkur Barrage and others (PLD 1965 SC 399) and Syed Mahmud Alam v. Syed Mehdi Hussain and others (PLD 1970 Lah. 6) to which one of us (M. A. Zullah, J.) was a party.
6. Another aspect of the present case is that the Additional Settlement Commissioner in first revision in the earlier round passed an order on 8-6-1961, whereby he remanded the case for fresh adjudication on the merits of the respective claims and entitlement of the parties. This destroyed the finality of the allotment order dated 15-12-1959, on which the appellants relied. The present appellants did not challenge that order by way of any revision or writ petition, etc. He rather submitted to the remand proceedings, and took a chance of a favourable decision; but then in the ultimate analysis in revision before the Settlement Commissioner, he lost the case he wants to revert back to the legality of the aforesaid first remand order dated 8-6-1961, by arguing that it was passed in a revision emanating from a time-barred appeal. Apart from the fact that question of limitation as above-stated is not involved in a revision, even otherwise, the appellants cannot be allowed to raise this plea at this late stage of the case, when the Settlement Commissioner on merits heard both the parties and thereafter gave a decision against the appellants. The point of limitation in the context cannot come to the rescue of the appellants.
7 Holding, accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same but would leave the parties to bear their own costs.