MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND Others vs MUHAMMAD, SAEED UZ ZAMAN, CLAIMS
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by the Claims Commissioner, who, acting in suo motu revision, significantly reduced the petitioners' verified property claims five years after the initial verification. The core legal question is whether the Claims Commissioner acted within the scope of his authority when exercising suo motu revision powers long after the prescribed 90-day limitation period had expired, particularly in light of the proviso allowing such action without a time limit if deemed fit. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting the similarity of the issue to the precedent set in Farooq Imam (PLD 1965 SC 585). The Court held that the matter requires further examination to determine if the Claims Commissioner properly exercised his discretion to interfere after the limitation period by considering the circumstances and recording a decision to that effect. The key principle established is that the exercise of suo motu revisional powers beyond the prescribed limitation period requires a reasoned decision demonstrating that the authority consciously deemed it fit to interfere.
- Can a Claims Commissioner exercise suo motu revision powers after the expiry of the prescribed 90-day limitation period?
- Is a Claims Commissioner required to record a specific decision that he deems it fit to interfere when exercising suo motu revision powers beyond the limitation period?
ORDER
1. CORNELIUS, C. J.-This petition raises inter alia a question similar to that which arose and was decided in the case of Farooq Imam (PLD 1965 SC 585) The Claims Commissioner, on the 27 December 1963, acting on information, and seemingly after consultation with the Director of enforcement, reduced very sub--stantially the extent of the claim of the petitioners, in respect of property abandoned in India, which had been duly examined and verified by a Claims Officer on the 14th June 1958, more than five years before. The action was in suo motu revision, for which at the time, the prescribed limitation was 90 days, but there was a proviso that the Claims Commissioner could act without limit of time, if he thought fit so to do.
2. We accordingly grant leave to appeal. The hearing will be expedited, and may proceed on the basis of the paper-book of the petitioner, unless the Claims Commissioner has documents other than his final order to show that he acted after considering the circumstances and recording a decision that he thought it fit to interfere, despite expiry of the prescribed period of limitation.
3. Security Rs. 1,000. 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.