Brig. (Retd.) ABDUL QAYYUM KHAN vs Mst. HANIFAN BIBI And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed a constitutional petition arising from a land settlement dispute. The High Court had remanded the case for a fresh decision after excluding certain evidence, reasoning that the Settlement Commissioner, while admitting fresh evidence and allowing cross-examination, had failed to provide the respondent side an opportunity to produce evidence in rebuttal, rendering the order without lawful authority. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan identified significant legal questions regarding the Settlement Commissioner's jurisdiction to admit additional evidence, the adequacy of the opportunity afforded for rebuttal, and whether the High Court should have decided the merits of the claims itself rather than remanding the matter. Finding the case fit for fuller examination, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, converted the petition into an appeal, and directed that the matter be prepared on the existing record with liberty for the parties to file additional documents, while also ordering the appeal to be fixed for hearing alongside a related matter.
- Does a Settlement Commissioner have the jurisdiction to admit and record additional evidence during revision proceedings in a land settlement case?
- Is a remand order by the High Court appropriate when a Settlement Commissioner fails to provide an opportunity for rebuttal evidence?
- Should the High Court decide the merits of a claim itself rather than remanding the case for fresh decision when procedural irregularities occur in lower proceedings?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 7-7-1979 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a constitutional petition filed by the respondent side which had arisen out of a land settlement case, was allowed and the case remanded for fresh decision after excluding a certain piece of evidence.
2. The only ground which prevailed with the learned Single Judge of the High Court was that when deciding the revision in a land settlement case, the Settlement Commissioner had examined fresh evidence and had afforded opportunity of cross-examination to the respondent side but had not afforded them an opportunity of producing evidence in rebuttal, therefore, the order, impugned before the High Court for these reasons was without lawful authority. Accordingly, a remand order was passed with a direction to exclude the entire said evidence.
3. The questions whether the Settlement Commissioner (Lands) had no jurisdiction to admit and record additional evidence and whether, sufficient opportunity of rebuttal by arguments or reference to the records or by cross-examination was not afforded to the respondent side and whether the case instead of being decided by the High Court itself by affording further opportunity to the respondent side, if necessary, should not have been decided in so far as the merits of the claims of the parties are concerned, require examination.
4. Notices to the respondents were also issued by another Bench of this Court on 13th April, 1983 "to show cause why this petition should not be converted into an appeal and the order of the High Court, dated 7-7-1979 be set aside". Learned counsel for the respondents having put in a caveat has opposed the grant of leave to appeal.
5. We, after hearing both the sides, consider it a fit case for fuller examination. Accordingly, this petition is converted into an appeal.
6. Security Rs.2,500.
7. The appeal to be prepared on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if necessary, and to be fixed within six months alongwith the appeal arising out of Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1074 of 1980 (Dr. Capt. Muhammad Rafiq and others v.
8. Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and others).