CHAUDHRY SAIN and others vs SAHIB DAD KHAN and others
This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had remanded a property dispute to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for further inquiry. The dispute concerned the transfer of servant quarters under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, where the petitioners claimed entitlement based on possession and application forms, while the respondents challenged the transfer orders. The core legal questions addressed whether the respondents' constitutional petition was barred by laches and whether the failure to specifically challenge the revisional order of the Settlement Commissioner rendered the constitutional petition defective. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision to remand the case for a proper inquiry by a Notified Officer was just and fair, as the factual controversy required resolution through evidence. The Court further affirmed that the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner merged into the order of the revisional authority, and the High Court had correctly examined the legal and factual aspects. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, upholding the remand order for factual determination.
- Does the order of an original authority merge into the order of a revisional authority for the purposes of judicial review?
- Can a constitutional petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches if the delay is explained by the time taken to obtain certified copies of the impugned order?
- Is a High Court's order remanding a case for factual inquiry by a competent authority legally sustainable when factual controversies remain unresolved?
' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 21-7-1992.
2. The facts of the case are that two flats were transferred to the respondents No, 1 and 2. The petitioners claimed to be in possession of servant quarters of these flats. They submitted application forms under Settlement Scheme No, VIII for the transfer of these servant quarters. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner by order dated 22-6-1974 transferred these quarters to the petitioners. The Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 challenged these orders before the Settlement Commissioner. Their revision petition was dismissed on 8-9-1975. The respondents then filed a Constitution petition in the High Court which was accepted by the impugned judgment. The learned High Court remanded the case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner with the direction to entrust the same to the Notified Officer for disposal of the forms submitted by the petitioners.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition of the respondents was barred by laches as the petition was filed on 2-1-1976 against the order dated 22-6-1974. The order does not indicate that this ground was agitated before the High Court or it may be presumed that the High Court has condoned the delay if any.
4. The learned counsel for the caveator submitted that the order of the Settlement Commissioner was passed on 8-9-1975. After obtaining the copy of the order, the respondents filed the petition without any delay, therefore, there was no delay on the part of the respondents.
5. The next contention of the learned counsel is that the respondents challenged the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner before the High Court but they did not challenge the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 8-9-1975. This contention has no merit. The High Court has considered the factual as well as the legal aspect of the case. The Chief Settlement Commissioner had upheld the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner merged into the order of the revisional authority. The basic order as per order of the High Court was set aside and the case was remanded. There is no illegality in the judgment of the High Court. The High Court has remanded the case for proper inquiry. The order is just and fair. The two sides have raised the factual controversy which can only be resolved by the Notified Officer after making an inquiry.
6. The petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal I is refused.