NAMDAR AND 2 Others vs THE ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER
This petition for leave to appeal arose from proceedings concerning the cancellation of a land allotment. The Additional Settlement Commissioner set aside the petitioners' allotment upon discovering that the land in dispute was Provincial Government property rather than evacuee land, making it unallotable under the relevant evacuee laws. The petitioners' constitutional petition before the Lahore High Court was dismissed. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners sought to rely upon new documentary evidence, specifically entries in an auction register, to demonstrate that the land was evacuee property prior to Partition, explaining that certified copies were unavailable during the High Court proceedings. The core question before the Supreme Court was whether an order of the High Court could be set aside on the basis of new material that was not produced before it. The Supreme Court held that it could not interfere with the High Court's judgment on the basis of unexamined material, affirming that the High Court's decision was unexceptionable based on the record presented to it. The petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, with the observation that petitioners could seek review before the High Court if permitted by law.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment based on new evidence or documents that were not produced before the High Court?
- Whether an allotment of land under evacuee laws remains valid if the property is determined to belong to the Provincial Government rather than being evacuee land?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The land in dispute was allotted .To the peti--tioners but, later on, it was discovered that the land in question was not evacuee land and belonged to the Provincial Government, hence the allotment "'as set aside by the Additional Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner (Land), Faisalabad as the land in dispute was- not allotable under the Evacuee/Rehabilitation Laws.
2. The petitioners' writ petition in the Lahore High Court also failed hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Qazi Abdul Hayee, learned counsel for the petitioners, relied on the entries in the register of auction of land which showed that the land had been purchased by Bhagwan Singh in the year 1945 and, therefore, the land in question was an evacuee property at the time of the Partition. He has placed on the record of this Court the relevant entries of the auction pro--ceedings and submits that these documents could not be produced in the High Court as the certified copies were available only on 24-7-1979 and 31-7-1979. It is clear, therefore, that the petitioners want us to interfere with the order of the High Court on the basis of the material not produced before it. This obviously cannot be done. The petitioners may move the High Court again for the review of the order, if the law permits, on the basis of this material.
4. The order of the High Court on the material produced before it is unexceptionable. Hence this petition must fail and is dismissed hereby.