Mst. ZUBEDA and 5 others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN and 2 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the High Court whereby a writ petition filed by respondent No. 3 was allowed and the case was remanded to the Notified Officer for decision afresh. The core legal question concerns the competency of a revision petition and the jurisdiction of settlement authorities to entertain applications for the cancellation of an agreement of association following the repeal of settlement laws. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether the order of remand passed by the High Court accords with the established guidelines and case-law regarding the functus officio status of settlement authorities after the repeal of the relevant laws. The court held that leave should be granted to examine the correctness of the High Court's remand order in light of the cited precedents.
- Whether a revision petition is maintainable before a Settlement Commissioner after the repeal of settlement laws?
- Does a Settlement Commissioner become functus officio after the repeal of settlement laws when no case is pending on or before the specified date?
- Is the High Court's order of remand in accordance with the guidelines laid down in past case-law regarding repealed settlement statutes?
ORDER
' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Leave is sought to file appeal against judgment dated 10-8-1992, whereby Writ Petition No, 1735-R of 1976 filed by Haji Rehmat Ali, respondent No, 3 before us, is allowed and the case is remanded to the Notified officer for decision in accordance with law within six months after hearing both parties.
2. Factually it appears that disputed property, which is a shop, was transferred to respondent No, 3, vide P.T.O. Dated 31-1-1960 and subsequently agreement of association was executed on 4-4-1963 between respondent No, 3 and Muhammad Zaman, who is succeeded after his death by his heirs, who are petitioners before us. Consequently, property rights in the disputed property were transferred to the extent of half share to each of the executants and in that context P.T.O. Followed by P.T.D. Were issued.
3. Rehmat All applied for cancellation of agreement of association and his application was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 6-5-1974 on the ground that it was not competent and applicant could seek remedy in proper forum. His second application was dismissed on 16-5-1975 on the same ground. He filed revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner, which has been dismissed vide order dated 31-5-1975 on the short ground that revision petition was not maintainable after repeal of Settlement laws. In such circumstances Rehmat Ali filed writ petition in the High Court, which is allowed and the case is remanded in the terms stated above.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners before us has contended that revision was rightly dismissed as not competent as no case was pending on or before 30-6-1974 and in such circumstances Settlement Commissioner had become functus officio and had rightly rejected application for cancellation of agreement of association filed by Haji Rehmat Ali. In support of the contention, reliance is placed on cases reported in 1973 SCM R 624 and PLD 1982 SC 413.
5. Leave is granted to examine whether order of remand passed by the A High Court is in accord with guidelines laid down in the case-law mentioned above.