Mistri MUHAMMAD NAZIR vs Mian MUHAMMAD SHAFI AND Other
This review petition was filed against the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal, wherein the petitioner claimed rights over the disputed property. The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court was influenced by the fact that the property was disposed of on January 29, 1960, prior to the issuance of a Press Note dated May 3, 1960, which governed properties converted to other uses after August 14, 1947. The petitioner contended that the Court overlooked his pre-existing rights under paragraph 20 of Settlement Scheme No. I, promulgated in July 1959. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that it was doubtful whether any rights accrued to the petitioner under the said paragraph. Furthermore, the Court noted that this specific contention was never pressed during the appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner against the original disposal order of January 29, 1960. Consequently, the grounds for review were found to be unsustainable.
- Can a petitioner raise a ground in a review petition before the Supreme Court if that ground was not pressed in the appeal before the lower settlement authorities?
- Does the subsequent issuance of a Press Note affect the validity of a property disposal that was finalized prior to its publication?
- Paragraph 20, Settlement Scheme No. I 1959
ORDER
1. NASIMHASAN SHAH, J.-The main ground raised by Mr. S. M. Zafar, in support of this review petition, is that this Court, while dismissing petition for leave to appeal, was influenced by the circumstance that the property in dispute stood "disposed of" on 29-1-1960 before the issuance of the Press Note dated 3-5-1960 relating to the disposal of properties converted into some other use after 14-8-1947 while the claim of the petitioner to the transfer of the property in dispute- was based on the rights accruing to him under the aforesaid Press Note dated 3-5-1960. However, it was overlooked that the petitioner had already acquired a right to the transfer of the property under paragraph 20 of the Settlement Scheme No.1 which was promulgated in July, 1959.
2. Apart from the fact that it is doubtful if the -petitioner, indeed, acquired any right to the transfer of the property in dispute under paragraph 20 of the Settlement Scheme No. I we observe that this contention was not pressed in the appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner filed against the order dated 29th January, 1960, whereby this property was disposed of. This review petition must, therefore, fail and is, accordingly dismissed hereby.