ABDUL KHALIQ KHAN BARKI vs MANZOOR ELAHI, C. VS. P., CHIEF SETTLEMENT
This matter concerns a review petition filed against the Supreme Court's order dismissing a petition for special leave to appeal regarding a dispute over a garden. The petitioner sought to re-open the matter, arguing that his entitlement to the property remained pending before the Central Government and that, per the precedent in Haji Muhammad Sadiq v. Fateh Muhammad, the requirement for proof of entitlement via special jamabandi under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme could be relaxed in favor of collateral evidence. The Court held that no error was disclosed in the impugned order to justify a review. The Court clarified that if the petitioner's claim remained pending before the Central Government, he was at liberty to pursue that remedy directly with the Government, which possessed the discretion to determine the adequacy of proof. If the petitioner secured a favorable determination from the Government, he could subsequently approach the Settlement Authorities. Finding no substance in the arguments presented, the Court dismissed the review petition.
- Can a review petition be entertained if no error is disclosed in the impugned order?
- Does the Central Government have the discretion to determine the adequacy of proof for property entitlement claims?
- Can a petitioner approach Settlement Authorities again after obtaining a favorable order from the Central Government?
- Paragraph 29, Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-This petition seeks a review of our order dated the 2nd of October 1969, whereby the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 239 of 1968 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. No error has been disclosed, in the impugned order to justify the re-opening of the matter. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the case of the petitioner's entitlement to the garden in dispute is still pending with the Central Government. He has cited the case of Haji Muhammad Sadiq v. Fateh Muhammad and others (PLD 1967 SC 233) for the contention that proof of entitlement by means of an entry in the special jamabandi as required by para. 29 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme, can be relaxed by the relevant authorities and that the collateral proof which in this case was furnished by the letter of the Deputy High Commissioner supporting the petitioner's entitlement could be accepted.
3. If the petitioner's claim is still pending for decision by the Central Government, he may pursue the matter there. It would be for the Government to judge as to what proof it considers adequate or necessary to uphold the petitioner's contention. If be gets a favourable order from the Government, he may try his luck again with the Settlement Authorities.
4. This review petition has no substance and is, therefore, dismissed.