GHULAM HUSSAIN AND 3 OTHERS vs Khan MUKARAB KHAN, ADDITIONAL
This civil review petition arises from an order remanding a property dispute to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision after hearing both parties on the factual and legal character of the disputed land. The core legal question was whether a newly discovered policy decision by the Chief Settlement Commissioner regarding conflicting transfers under different settlement laws constitutes a valid ground for review. The Supreme Court held that the ignorance of such a policy decision at the time of the original hearing does not furnish a ground for review, and dismissed the petition while noting that the applicants are free to urge any valid factual or legal ground before the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The key principle laid down is that ignorance of a policy decision at the original hearing does not warrant review of an appellate order, particularly when the remand order already permits the parties to raise all available legal and factual contentions before the original authority.
- Does the discovery of a policy decision after the decision of the court furnish a valid ground for review?
- Can parties raise valid factual and legal grounds before the Chief Settlement Commissioner upon remand?
- Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act XXVIII of 1958
- Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act XLVII of 1958
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This petition seeks review of an order of a Bench of this Court dated the 7th of July 1971, made in Civil Appeal No. 25 of 1968. By that order, the case was remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to decide it afresh after hear in, both the parties on the factual and legal position with regard to the character of the disputed land for its transfer under the settlement law.
2. This remand was con--sidered necessary as the disputed land had been the subject of two conflicting orders by two Additional Settlement Commis--sioners. One had dealt with it and disposed it of in favour of the respondents, Shamshad A.I and others as an industrial concern under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act XXVIII of 1958. The other had treated it as a piece of agricultural land and transferred it under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement)
3. Act XLVII of 1958 in favour of the present applicants, Ghulam Hussain and others.
4. The learned counsel for the applicants has contended that the Chief Settlement Commissioner has, in a policy decision, laid down that if there is a conflict between the authorities under the Land Settlement Act and under the Displaced Person (Compensa--petition and Rehabilitation) Act respectively, then the decision of the latter should prevail. It is submitted that under this policy decision, which the order under review has not taken note of, the applicants were entitled to the transfer of this property as an industrial concern, and that the remand order made by this Court for a fresh decision by the Chief Settlement Commissioner should be recalled. No such policy decision was referred to us at the time of the hearing of the original petition, and even if the petitioner has now been able to discover one, it does not furnish a ground for review merely because he was ignorant of the same himself at the time. However, since the case has been remanded to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to decide the same both on facts as well as on law, it will be open to the petitioners to urge for a decision in their favour on any valid ground, factual or legal. There is no substance in this review petition, which is dismissed.