THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER/MEMBER (SETTLEMENT REHABILITATION
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the interpretation of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The core legal questions address whether a respondent's claim forms constitute 'pending proceedings' under Section 2(2) of the Repeal Act, the binding nature of a concession made by counsel for the Chief Settlement Commissioner before the High Court regarding the respondent's status as a claimant Displaced Person and land availability, and the High Court's authority to direct land allotments from evacuee property after the repeal of the relevant laws, given that such lands were transferred to Provincial Governments. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these issues, specifically focusing on the scope of the Repeal Act and the jurisdictional limits of the High Court in ordering allotments of evacuee property post-repeal. The Court stayed the operation of the High Court's order pending the final adjudication of the appeal, allowing parties to file additional documents for the hearing.
- Can claim forms be treated as pending proceedings under Section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975?
- Is the Chief Settlement Commissioner bound by a concession made by counsel regarding the status of a claimant and land availability?
- Does the High Court have the authority to direct the allotment of evacuee land after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws and the transfer of such land to Provincial Governments?
- Section 2(2), Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975
ORDER
1. ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--Leave to appeal is granted to consider the questions:
(1) Whether the claim of the respondent against his Claim Forms No, 6917 and 6918 could be treated as pending proceedings within the meaning of section 2(2), Evacuee Propety and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
(2) Whether the Chief Settlement Commissioner was bound by the concession made by counsel appearing for him before the High Court to the effect that the respondent was a claimant Displaced Person and there was some land available for allotment in Sheikhupura District? And
(3) Whether the High Court could give a direction for allotment to be made to the respondent from availabe evacuee land when after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws by the aforementioned Act all evacuee land stood transferred to the Provincial Governments.
2. ' The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with premission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. In the meanwhile the operation of the order of the High Court is stayed.