Qazi KHURSHID ALAM and others vs Sardar HIDAYATULLAH MOKAL, SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that upheld an order of the Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Commissioner had restored a revision petition that was previously dismissed in default, citing humanitarian grounds because some of the petitioners were a widow and her minor children. The petitioners before the Supreme Court challenged this restoration, arguing that the contesting respondents had retransferred their units from the Sialkot District after the land in dispute had already been confirmed to the petitioners and possession delivered. Furthermore, the petitioners contended that the Settlement Commissioner and the High Court failed to account for the fact that, in addition to the widow and her minor children, there were three other adult respondents who were not entitled to the humanitarian indulgence granted. Finding substance in these contentions, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the restoration of the revision petition was legally justified given the change in circumstances and the status of the respondents.
- Can a revision petition dismissed in default be restored on humanitarian grounds?
- Does the retransfer of units by a claimant after the confirmation of land affect their standing to agitate a claim?
- Is it legally permissible to restore a petition on humanitarian grounds when some beneficiaries are adults not entitled to such indulgence?
ORDER
1. ' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- The revision petition of respondents Nos. 2 to 8 against the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner in default on 10-10-1967. But it was restored by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 13-4-1968 on humanitarian grounds namely, that petitioners before him (respondents 2, 6 to 8 herein) were a widow and her minor children. The writ petition filed by the petitioners against this order failed.
2. Hence this petition for Leave to Appeal.
2. Raja Afrasiab Khan, in support of this petition for Leave to appeal contends, inter alia, that:-
(i) the contesting respondents have after the confirmation of the land in dispute to the petitioners on 7-6-1966 and the delivery of the possession to them and the dismissal of their revision petition, retransferred their units from Sialkot District and cannot, therefore, now successfully agitate their claim to the land in dispute; and
(ii) that while restoring the petition dismissed in default, the learned Settlement Commissioner and the High Court overlooked that besides the widow (respondent No,2 herein) and her minor children (respondents 6 to 8 herein) there were three other persons (respondents 3 to 5 herein), who were majors and were not entitled to any indulgence.
3. ' Notice was issued to the respondents by this Court on three different dates but no one has turned up. There appears to be substance in the two contentions raised by the petitioners' learned counsel.
4. ' Leave is, therefore, granted to consider the same. Security in the sum of Rs,2,500.