KARAM DIN and others vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court regarding the retention of Swanadari land. The core legal questions involve the computation of the period of limitation for filing a petition when an issue arises over the date of announcement of the judgment, and whether administrative miscellaneous applications regarding excess land allotments cancelled long before 1974 can be treated as pending proceedings for the reopening of the matter. The Supreme Court held that the petition was barred by 175 days as the presumption of correctness attached to the High Court's judicial record regarding the date of announcement could not be rebutted, and that the matter could not be treated as pending proceedings since no regular appeal or revision had been filed under the settlement laws before their repeal. The key principle laid down is that judicial records concerning the announcement of judgments carry a presumption of correctness, and pending proceedings status requires active statutory remedies like appeals or revisions rather than mere miscellaneous applications.
- Whether the period of limitation for filing a petition commences from the date of the announcement of the judgment as recorded by the court?
- Can a presumption of correctness attached to a judicial record regarding the date of judgment announcement be interfered with without cogent evidence?
- Whether the submission of miscellaneous applications for land allotment without pursuing regular appeals or revisions can qualify a matter as pending proceedings under settlement laws?
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.-- The constitutional petition filed by the petitioners praying that allotment of Swanadari land may be allowed to be retained by them has been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 14.10.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court against which leave is sought.
2. The petition is barred by 175 days. The judgment was announced on 14.10.1999 whereas application for supply of certified copy was made or 10.3.2000. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted as has been stated in the application made for condonation of delay that .Judgment was reserved and it was later on announced on 10.3.2000 when the petitioners inquired about the same from the Court.
3. The petitioners themselves made application to the learned Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High Court for .Changing the date of announcement of judgment from 14.10.1999 to 10.3.2000 when it was signed. The learned Judge on this application specifically held that the judgment was announced on 14.10.1999 later on the same day but it took some time to dictate and sign the same.
If that be so, the application for supply of certified copy should have been made within period of limitation prescribed for filing this petition counted form 14.10.1999, for the period of limitation started from the said date and we are not inclined to accept the stand taken by the petitioners that the judgment was not announced later in the day of the conclusion of arguments i.e. 14.10.1999 against the findings of the learned Judge on their application. Presumption of correctness is attached to the judicial act and the record and unless it was rebutted by cogent evidence it is not lightly interfered with.
4. Even otherwise, it was rightly held by the learned Judge of the High Court that it was not a case of pending proceedings which could be reopened. The excess land from the allotment of the petitioners was cancelled long before 1974 but no proceeding was taken by them in appeal or revision before repeal of the settlement laws against the said act of the respondents whereas in the writ petition, the only prayer made was that the petitioners should be allowed, to retain Swandari land and for the said purpose, the proceedings may be directed to be considered as pending proceedings.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to persuade us that it could be treated to be a case of pending proceedings because the petitioners after cancellation of their excess allotment, did not take further proceedings, for the proper course to make these proceedings pending was to file regular appeal or revision under the settlement laws and if such appeal or revision was pending, it would have become a case of pending proceedings. By making miscellaneous applications for allotment of land, the proceedings would not become pending proceedings unless the Settlement Authorities before repeal of the Act had taken some steps over the same which were still pending to take it to, its logical conclusion.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merits in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed both as barred by time and also on merits as well and .