BLUNDA vs MUHAMMAD DIN And Other
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a constitutional petition concerning an urban settlement property dispute. The petitioner, a non-claimant displaced person, had been transferred the property in 1959, but this transfer was later ignored, and the property was auctioned. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's constitutional challenge on the grounds of laches and the lack of revisional jurisdiction by the Settlement Commissioner in 1975 due to the repeal of settlement laws. The petitioner contended that the constitutional petition was filed promptly after the Settlement Commissioner's refusal to exercise jurisdiction, thereby negating laches, and argued that the matter constituted a pending case where the Settlement Commissioner retained authority despite the repeal of the relevant laws. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the High Court correctly applied the principles of laches and whether the Settlement Commissioner possessed the requisite jurisdiction to grant relief in a pending case notwithstanding the repeal of settlement laws.
- Does a constitutional petition filed shortly after a Settlement Commissioner's refusal to exercise jurisdiction suffer from laches?
- Does the repeal of settlement laws divest a Settlement Commissioner of the authority to grant relief in a pending case?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sough from judgment dated 8-7-1981 of the Lahore High Court; whereby : Constitutional petition arising out of an urban settlement case, was dismissed.
2. The petitioner being admittedly a non-claimant displaced person was transferred the property in dispute on his N.C.H. Form in 1959; without proper procedure. This transfer was ignored and the propert3 was auctioned. The learned Judge in the High Court after noticing the arguments advanced from the petitioner side which on face were very weighty, dismissed his Constitutional petition on the ground: first that it suffered from laches and secondly that in the year, 1975 the Settlement Commissioner could not have granted relief to the petitioner in his revisional jurisdiction on account of the repeal of the settlement laws.
3. Learned counsel has contended that the Settlement Commissioner having refused to exercise the revisional jurisdiction on 17-3-1975, the Constitutional petition was filed on 31st of March, 1975 therefore, it did not suffer from laches. He also contended that it was a pending case, therefore, the Settlement Commissioner was competent not with--standing the repeal of the laws to grant relief to the petitioner. Therefore it was a case of failure to exercise jurisdiction.
4. After hearing the learned counsel we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to examine the contentions raised before the High Court and noted in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment, together with the other connected points including those noted above.
5. Order accordingly.
6. Security Rs. 2,500.
7. The appeal to be prepared on the present record and made ready for hearing within this year.