ABDUL KARIM MOOSA vs MOHINI BAI AND Other
This matter arises from a review petition filed against the order of the Supreme Court dismissing a civil petition for special leave to appeal. The core legal question addressed is whether the acquisition of the property in dispute by the Government under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement Act, 1958) renders it non-evacuee property, and whether the petition warrants reconsideration and satisfies the grounds for review under Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the legal point stands authoritatively settled by an earlier precedent of the Court and that the grounds urged do not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record. The ratio decidendi is that a review petition cannot be entertained where the legal proposition has already been authoritatively determined and no apparent error exists on the record. The key principle laid down is that settled questions of law adjudicated by authoritative precedents do not furnish a ground for review.
- Whether the acquisition of property by the Government under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement Act, 1958) makes it non-evacuee property?
- Does a previously settled authoritative decision on a point of law warrant reconsideration in review proceedings?
- What constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record for the purposes of maintaining a review petition under Order XLVII, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Section 4, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement Act, 1958)
- Order XLVII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-This is an application for review against the order of this Court in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-82 of 1972, dated the 22nd November 1972. By this order, the petition was dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the view of this Court that the property in dispute has become non---evacuee property as it has been acquired by the Government under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement Act, 1958, requires reconsideration. This point was considered by this Court in the case of Devachand Muljimal v. The Deputy Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner, Karachi and others (PLD 1965 SC 356). There is thus an authoritative decision on this point and the question does not require reconsideration. The ground taken by the petitioner is not covered by Order XLVII, rule 1, C. P. C.
3. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. There is no ground to review. The review petition is dismissed.