MUHAMMAD NAZIR Versus MUBAMMAD SHAFI
This review petition was filed against the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal, concerning the transfer of a disputed property. The petitioner contended that the Court overlooked his acquired rights under Paragraph 20 of Settlement Scheme No. I, promulgated in July 1959, which existed prior to the property's disposal on January 29, 1960, and before the issuance of a subsequent Press Note dated May 3, 1960. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could claim transfer rights under Settlement Scheme No. I when the property had already been disposed of and the contention was not raised in the initial appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, holding that it was doubtful whether any rights accrued to the petitioner under Paragraph 20 of Settlement Scheme No. I, and furthermore, the petitioner had failed to press this contention in the appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner against the disposal order of January 29, 1960.
- Can a petitioner seek review of a judgment based on a contention that was not pressed in the initial appeal before the lower settlement authorities?
- Does the subsequent issuance of a Press Note affect the validity of a property disposal that was completed prior to its publication?
- Paragraph 20, Settlement Scheme No. I 1959
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN 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.
3. M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.