Mst. RAISHAM BIBI vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) With Powers Of Settlement Commissioner (Land) And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging an order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) exercising powers of Settlement Commissioner (Land). The Settlement Commissioner had set aside an order of the Assistant Commissioner upholding a mutation of inheritance in favour of the petitioner, Mst. Raisham Bibi, and remanded the case for a fresh decision after hearing both parties. The core question involved the legality of the remand order and the prolonged delay in the fresh proceedings before the original forum. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to grant leave to appeal to avoid further prolonging the decades-old litigation. Instead, the Court disposed of the petition with a direction to the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Lyallpur, to decide the long-pending remanded case strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months. The key principle laid down is that courts should expedite protracted revenue matters rather than keeping them pending through extended appellate litigation.
- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal against an order remanding a revenue matter for fresh decision after prolonged delay?
- Can a court direct an inferior revenue authority to conclude pending remanded proceedings within a specified timeframe?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---In this case the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) exercising powers of the Settlement Commissioner (Land) by his order dated 13-7-1972 set aside the order dated 14-4- 1972 passed by the Assistant Commissioner with powers of the Collector Lyallpur who had upheld the order dated 16-9-1967 passed by the A.C. 2nd Grade Lyallpur sanctioning mutation of inheritance of Mst. Karam Bibi in favour of Mst. Raisham Bibi (Petitioner herein) and remanded the case to the A.C. 2nd Grade Lyallpur for fresh decision after hearing both the parties. Aggrieved by the said order of the learned Settlement Commissioner the petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court. This was dismissed and the said order of the High Court is now questioned in this Court by this petition for leave to appeal.
2. This matter came up before this Court on 26-5-1986 when the prayer for interim relief with regard to the stay of proceedings pending before the Assistant Collector was refused by a learned Judge of this Court. Despite this order the matter has not yet been decided afresh although it was remanded to him very long ago by the learned Settlement Commissioner namely on 13-7-1972.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we, are of the opinion that instead of granting leave to appeal in this case and further prolonging the matter it would be more appropriate for the Assistant Collector 2nd Grade, Lyallpur to decide the case entrusted to him since long, as early as possible. As the matter has already been pending with him for more than 17 years he should decide the matter in accordance with law, within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order.
4. This petition, with these observations, stands disposed of.