Mst. SHANBIBI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Sind High Court, which had dismissed a Constitution Petition seeking to set aside an order of the Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner had requested the cancellation of the transfer of a disputed property (C.H. No. 1368/1) to the respondents, claiming she had purchased a property (C.H. No. 1368/5) in a separate auction. The Settlement Commissioner had rejected this application on the grounds that the petitioner's previous transfer had been cancelled in 1972, her appeal against that cancellation was dismissed in 1973, and the order had attained finality. Crucially, the Settlement Commissioner and the High Court held that the petitioner's application filed in 1976 was incompetent because the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 had been repealed effective 1 July 1974, and no proceedings were pending at that time. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that once the relevant statute was repealed and the previous orders had become final, the authorities lacked jurisdiction to reopen the matter.
- Can a settlement authority reopen a case after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 if no proceedings were pending at the time of repeal?
- Does an order of an Additional Settlement Commissioner attain finality if it is not challenged by the aggrieved party?
- Is an application for cancellation of a property transfer competent if filed after the repeal of the governing statute and the finality of previous adverse orders?
- Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-This is a petition for leave to Appeal from the judgment of a learned Judge of Sind High Court dated 10-10-1984 by which he dismissed the Constitution Petition filed by petitioner by which she sought to challenge the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 5th March 1976. By that order, learned Settlement Commissioner rejected petitioner's application dated 3-2-1976 by which she requested that the transfer of the disputed house bearing C.H. No.1368/1, Ward B, Larkana in favour of Minho Khan predecessor-in-interest of respondents 4 to 9 as the highest bidder at the open auction held on 25-10-1963 be cancelled. Petitioner's claim was based on the fact that she had purchased house bearing C.H.No.1368/5, Ward B, Larkana in an open auction held on 21-9-1964 which, according to her, bore C.H No. 1368/1, Ward B, Larkana. Learned Settlement Commissioner rejected petitioner's application on the ground that the transfer of house bearing No.C.H.1368/5 was cancelled by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 5-12-1972 and the petitioner's appeal against this order had also been dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner by the order dated 16-2-1973, and since the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dismissing petitioner's appeal was not challenged by the petitioner at any stage, her subsequent application dated 3-2-1976 was incompetent as by then 'the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1958 stood repealed with effect from 1-7-1974. Learned Judge ir, the High Court also rejected petitioner's claim for the same reasons that "the order dated 6-2-1973 (passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner) thus became final and there was no proceedings pending before the Settlement Authorities on 1-7-1974 when the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 stood repealed. In view of this legal position, the learned Settlement Commissioner was justified in refusing to reopen the case on the Miscellaneous Application filed by the petitioner on 3-2-1976."
2. After having heard the learned counsel, we do not see how any exception can be taken with the view that has prevailed with the learned Judge in the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.