BASSI vs QASIM ALI and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal as incompetent. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of an Intra-Court Appeal under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 against an order passed by a Single Judge in constitutional jurisdiction arising out of proceedings under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, particularly in light of the rule laid down in Mst. Karim Bibi v. Hussain Bakhsh (PLD 1984 SC 344). The Supreme Court held that the contention raised by the petitioner regarding the competency of the Intra-Court Appeal and the applicability of the precedent requires detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the order passed under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 constituted an original order within the meaning of section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972.
- Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable against the judgment of a Single Judge in constitutional jurisdiction arising from proceedings under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- Does an order passed under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 qualify as an original order under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
- Section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958
- Section 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958
- Section 3(2), Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972
ORDER
' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Bassi petitioner alongwith Kanwar Waisal respondent No,9 herein moved an application under sections 10 and 11 of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 for cancellation of the allotment obtained by Muhammad Siddique respondent No,6 (who has since died and is represented by his legal heirs). Settlement Commissioner, Multan (with the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner) allowed the Mukhbari application and cancelled the allotment of Muhammad Siddique vide order dated 6-5-1977 with further direction that the land so cancelled be allotted to the petitioner and other informants. Respondent Nos.1 to 4, 7 and 8 who claimed to be the purchasers from the aforesaid allottee challenged the order of the Settlement Commissioner, in Writ Petition No,1140-R of 1977 which was accepted by a learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court vide order dated 15-1-1980. Kanwar Waisal respondent and the petitioner preferred an appeal (I.-C.A. No,27 of 1980) against the order of the learned Single Judge which has been dismissed as incompetent by a learned Division Bench of Lahore High Court vide order dated 31-10- 1995. The learned Judges have held that since the dispute before the learned Single Judge had arisen out of the proceedings under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement)
Act, 1958, "this Intra-Court Appeal on the face of it is not maintainable".
' Reliance for this view was placed on Mst. Karim Bibi and others v. Hussain Bakhsh and others (PLD 1984 SC 344).
2. Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order dismissing the Intra-Court Appeal as incompetent.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/caveators. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed in the proceedings under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was "original order" within the meaning of section 3(2) of the Law Reforms P Ordinance, 1972 as amended and it was not subject to the incidence of appeal revision/review and as such Intra-Court Appeal against the judgment/order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court passed in Constitutional jurisdiction was competent. According to the learned counsel, the case of Mst. Karim Bibi (supra) relied upon by the learned Judges of the High Court is distinguishable. The contention raised needs consideration. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal in this case to examine the aforenoted contention.