ABDUL KARIM vs HASHMAT ALI AND OTHERS
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed two constitutional petitions regarding a settlement dispute involving displaced persons and evacuee property. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Commissioner, in passing an order on 20-5-1970, had adhered to the specific conditions and directions stipulated by the High Court in a previous order of remand issued by a Letters Patent Bench in L.P.A. No. 950 of 1966. The Supreme Court examined the proceedings and concurred with the High Court's finding that the Settlement Commissioner had failed to comply with the mandatory conditions set forth in the remand order. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction to set aside the Settlement Commissioner's order. The Court affirmed that administrative or quasi-judicial authorities are bound to strictly follow the directions issued by a superior court in a remand order, and failure to do so renders the subsequent decision liable to be set aside through constitutional review.
- Is a Settlement Commissioner bound to strictly comply with the conditions laid down by a High Court in an order of remand?
- Can a High Court set aside an order of a Settlement Commissioner in its constitutional jurisdiction if the Commissioner fails to follow a remand order?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 18-12-1975 of the Lahore High Court, whereby two constitutional petitions arising out of a settlement case (under the laws relating to Displaced Persons and Evacuee Property) filed from the side of the respondents, were allowed, on the main ground that the Settlement Commissioner when deciding the case on 20-5-1970, had failed to observe the conditions laid down by the High Court in the order of remand passed by a Letters Patent Bench in L. P. A. No, 950 of 1966.
2. After hearing the learned counsel in support of these two petitions, we agree with the High Court that the conditions laid down by the learned Letters Patent Bench of the High Court in its order of remain were not complied with by the Settlement Commissioner. Therefore, the order dated 22-5- 1970 passed by the Settlement Commissioner, which was impugned before the High Court from the respondents' side in the second round of litigation, was liable to be set aside in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. That being so, no justification has been made out for interference by this Court. These petitions accordingly are dismissed.