MUHAMMAD HANIF AND Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal granted by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on March 4, 1970, to examine the validity of an order passed by the Settlement Commissioner in revision, which set aside the transfer of certain lands in favour of the petitioners and ordered a fresh division. The core legal question concerned whether the Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to alter transfer orders during demarcation proceedings, and whether one of the petitioners was improperly excluded under a misconception. The Court held that pending the final determination of the appeal, the impugned order of fresh division passed by the Settlement Commissioner should not be given effect to, and the status quo between the parties must be maintained. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court may grant an order to maintain the status quo during the pendency of an appeal to prevent the execution of a disputed administrative or quasi-judicial order that threatens to alter rights before the matter is fully adjudicated.
- Whether the Settlement Commissioner has jurisdiction to alter orders of transfer in demarcation proceedings?
- Can the Supreme Court order the maintenance of status quo during the pendency of an appeal against an order of the Settlement Commissioner?
ORDER
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-In this matter leave was granted on the 4th of March 1970, to consider the validity of an order passed by the Settlement Commissioner in revision, whereby transfer of certain lands in favour of the petitioners was set aside and a fresh division was ordered.
2. The contention raised in the petition for special leave was that the Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to alter the orders of transfer in demarcation proceedings. It was also contended that the Settlement Commissioner had excluded one of the petitioners under a complete misconception. In these circumstances, it is obvious that the petitioners should also have prayed for an order to maintain the status quo during the pendency of the appeal in this Court. This was not done then, but now au application has been moved on the ground that the Settlement Department is threatening to give effect to the impugned order of the Settlement Commissioner.
3. This is a fit case in which the status quo should, in our opinion, be maintained. We, accordingly, direct that during the pendency of the appeal in this Court the order of fresh division passed by the Settlement Commissioner in revision should not be given effect to and the status quo should be maintained. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.