NOOK MOHAMMAD vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), LYALLPUR AND 2 Other
This petition for special leave to appeal challenges an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a petition filed under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The petitioner sought an enhancement of Produce Index Units, claiming that the initial description of his allotted land as 'Ghair Mumkin' was incorrect and should have been 'Ghair Mumkin Reg'. The High Court declined to interfere, holding that the matter involved findings of fact, and that the petitioner suffered no actual loss, as the Fard-e-Haqiat remained unamended. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner further argued that a 1972 amendment to Section 30 of the Act entitled him to pursue appellate or revisional remedies. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the High Court correctly refused to re-examine findings of fact. Furthermore, the Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on the 1972 amendment, noting that the High Court proceedings had concluded well before the amendment was enacted. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts will not interfere with factual determinations and that statutory amendments do not apply retroactively to concluded litigation.
- Can a High Court interfere with findings of fact in a petition under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- Does a statutory amendment enacted after the conclusion of legal proceedings apply to those proceedings?
- Is a petitioner entitled to an enhancement of Produce Index Units if the Fard-e-Haqiat has not been amended?
- Section 21, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958
- Section 30(3), Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This petition for special leave to appeal is from an order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's petition in exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958.
2. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the land that was allotted to him was wrongly described as Ghair Mumkin and that subsequently the description was corrected as `chair Mumkin Reg'. On the basis of `chair Mumkin Reg the petitioner claimed he was entitled to certain gain in the Produce Index Units.
3. The report sent to the High Court by the Deputy Secretary (Rural) of the Department of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilita--petition Commissioner disclosed that the difference in the description did not cause any loss to the petitioner.
4. The report further stated that as there was no amendment of the Fard-e-Haqiat issued by the Central Record Office, the petitioner was not entitled to claim enhancement of the Produce Index Units already issued to him.
5. The learned Judges of the High Court were of the opinion that the matter is concluded by findings of facts, and therefore, they could not interfere with the findings in the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction under section 21 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, We are unable to find any fault with the impugned order of the High Court.
6. It has also been contended before us that section 30 of the said Act was amended by the introducing subsection (3) to the section on the 19th of January 1972, and therefore, under the amended section the petitioner became entitled to prefer an appeal or revision before the Settlement Commissioner or the Chief Settlement Commissioner, as the case might be. The new subsection (3) is in these terms :- "Any order passed by a Settlement Commissioner or an Additional, Deputy or Assistant Settlement Commissioner in exercise of any power delegated to him under subsection (2) shall be and shall be deemed always .To have been, subject, to the provisions of Chapter VI in. The same manner and to the* same extent as any other order passed by a Settlement Commissioner, Additional, Deputy or Assistant Settlement Commissioner, as the case may be, is so subject."
7. This contention is not tenable in view of the fact that the revision petition was made before, the High Court on the 12th December 1970, and it was dismissed on the 12th of May 1971, that is, long before the said amendment.
8. The petition is accordingly dismissed.