JUDGMENT RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.- Petitioners seek review of the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 1203 of 1996 filed by Qaim Din and others against Major (R) Barkat Ali and others decided on 4.7.1998.
2. Evacuee land measuring 2 kanals, 2 marlas out of Khasra No. 4551/271 Kharian was allotted to Abdul Aziz, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 2 to 21 in C.R.P. No. 106 of 1998 on 15.9.1960 whereas land measuring 4 kanals out of same khasra number was allotted to Boota, predecessor- in-interest of petitioners in the above- said review petition. Total area of this khasra number, recorded in special jamabandi for the year 1946-47 ac ghair mumkin, is shown to be 32 kanals, 16 marlas owned by evacuee Mangal Singh. On his part, Boota sold land measuring 4 kanals to Mst.
Hajira Begum wife of Chaudhry Manzoor Ellahi-respondent No. 27 in C.R.P. No. 88 of 1998 in the year 1962. In the year 1963, a combined auction list of shops, open plots and houses was published by Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Gujrat wherein houses and shops at Serial No. 1/1 to 1/15 owned by evacuee Mangal Singh were detailed as demolished properties. The location of such properties and names of the evacuee owners were mentioned in the list alongwith a note that properties Nos.
1/1 to 1/15 comprising Khasra No. 4551/271 measuring 32 kanals, 16 marlas were situated between G.T. Road and Railway Station, Kharian as pointed out by Halqa Patwari. However, in the bid sheet, placed on record by petitioner- Major (R) Barkat Ali, two khasra numbers i.e. Khasra Nos. 4551 and 4550 were reflected without indicating the total area of the properties Nos. 1/1 to 1/15 as well as both the khasra numbers. The auction was conducted on 29.1,1963, in which highest bid of Rs. 90,000/-, offered by petitioner- Major (R) Barkat Ali, was noted as against reserve price of Rs. 1,32,900/-, subject to the condition that the property had not been disposed of earlier. It appears that before the confirmation of auction proceedings, a letter dated 31.7.1964 was addressed by the Settlement Commissioner (Policy), Lahore to the Additional Settlement -and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Rawalpindi, with a copy endorsed to Major (R) Barkat Ali, reflecting that initial bid of Rs. 90,000/- in respect of plot bearing Khasra No. 4551/271 was less than its reserve price, hence it was ordered that if he was prepared to pay the reserve price, the plot should be given to him otherwise, it should be re-auctioned in small plots. Pursuant to the above direction, Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Gujrat, by his memo, dated 12.8.1964, called upon petitioner Major (R) Barkat Ali to intimate within a week's time whether he was prepared to pay reserve price of the above-noted plot bearing Khasra No. 4551/271 Kharian otherwise the same would be re-auctioned in small plots. On his part, petitioner intimated his acceptance with a request to issue appendix but reserving his right to question the reserve price at an appropriate time whereupon, Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Gujrat vide memo, dated 28.8.1964 informed him that appendix could only be issued on unconditional acceptance of the reserve price communicated to him in respect of plot bearing Khara No. 4551/271 Kharian, who, subsequently communicated his unconditional acceptance of the reserve price. Resultantly, P.T.O. No. 49, dated 6.10.1964 was issued in his favour with the particulars of the property surprisingly indicating two khasra numbers in the schedule of property as under:-- "Properties Nos. 1/1 to 1/15 Kharian (Khasra Nos.
4550-4551/271)."
This was followed by Permanent Transfer Deed, dated 17.1.1967, without, however, reflecting any khasra number. Particulars of the property noted in this document were recorded as under:- "Plots Nos. 1/1 to 1/15 Kharian transferred permanently in favour of Chaudhry Barkat Ali son of Chaudhry Muhammad Khan of Lalamusa."
3. In April, 1970, when auction purchaser approached the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for demarcation of the plot and ascertaining correct area of land sold out to him, latter, vide memo, dated 31.8.1970, required him to pay a sum of Rs. 12,200/- within a week's time as khasra numbers for which PXO. Had been issued to him covered an area of 72 kanals, 11 marlas and the transfer price worked out to be Rs. 1,45,100/- whereas he had paid a sum of Rs. 1,32,900/-. It was specifically noted by this Court in the judgment under review, that it was a communication in Which Khasra No. 4550/271 was consciously shown as one of the khasra number transferred to the petitioner indicating the area transferred as 72 kanals, 11 marlas and called upon Major (R) Barkat Ali to show the original P.T.D. But it was not produced during the hearing of the appeal, which continued from 12.6.1998 to 18.6.1998. It may be pertinent to note that even uptil pronouncement of the judgment on 4.7.1998, original P.T.D. Was not produced in Court.
4. When petitioner approached Tehsildar Kharian for mutation of the record in his name, it was declined presumably because Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Gujrat vide memo, dated 19.11.1970 had desired that the property in question i.e. 6 kanals, 2 marlas may not be allotted or proposed to any other person and if it had already been allotted desirability of its cancellation to be gone into. The factum of allotment of 6 kanals, 2 marlas, as agricultural land came to the notice of the petitioner during the proceedings for attestation of mutation, as Tehsildar Kharian remarked that attestation of the mutation of above- mentioned allotment be got reviewed. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order but the same was held to be infructuous vide order dated 22.7.1971 for the reason that Transfer Deed had not been given effect. On 28.1.1973 Sadar Qanungo made a report that proceedings under Sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 be taken but the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala, by order dated 24.6.1975, refused to interfere on the ground that allotment having taken place as agricultural land on a date earlier to the auction, allotment of the land, could not be set aside.
Barkat Ali challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 625-R of 1975 before the Lahore High Court on the premise that Revenue Authorities had no jurisdiction to refuse to sanction a mutation as the property was purchased by him in open auction and that in any case allotment of land in favour of Abdul Aziz and Boota, as agricultural land, was unlawful for the reason that factually the land was not agricultural property. This writ petition was accepted with the observation that omission on the part of competent authority to decide about the nature of the land was without lawful authority.
The case was, therefore, sent back to an officer authorized to exercise jurisdiction both under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 in terms of Section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 to determine if the land in question was governed by one Act or the other. On remand, Settlement Commissioner (Land), Rawalpindi Division held that land measuring 6 kanals, 2 marlas transferred to Abdul Aziz and Boota had been validly allotted under Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and could not have been subsequently included in the auction under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and stood excluded from the property transferred to the auction purchaser. This order was challenged by the auction purchaser in Writ Petition No. 1354-R of 1976, which was accepted vide judgment dated 6.6.1994, observing that the issue, on which the case was earlier remanded by the High Court to the Notified Officer, had not been decided in accordance with law and shall have to be decided afresh. The case was, therefore, remanded to the Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement), Lahore for entrusting it to an officer authorised to exercise jurisdiction under both the Acts, as directed earlier. C.P.L.A. No. 1204-L of 1994, against this judgment was filed in this Court but leave to appeal was refused on 9.4.1996. In post remand proceedings, Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, vide order dated 25.1.1995 held that land comprising Khasra No. 4551/271, measuring 32 kanals, 16 marlas was not agricultural land and was rightly auctioned and transferred as building site. Resultantly, allotment of this piece of land was cancelled, which was challenged by petitioners-Qaim Din and others being the legal representatives of deceased Boota in Writ Petition No,. 86-R of 1995, which was, however, dismissed in limine vide order dated 9.4.1995.
Another Writ Petition No. 71-R of 1996, challenging the same order, filed by Muhammad Asghar and others, was sub judice when Qaim Din and others challenged the order of dismissal of their writ petition through petition for leave to appeal before this Court, which was granted, while recording the submissions of the parties counsel and the observations as under:-- "The principal ground on which leave is sought is that no notice of the proceedings before the Settlement Commissioner was given to the petitioners and the Settlement Commissioner's order is, therefore, a nullity in law. For this contention reliance is placed upon Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah v. Ch. Muhammad Hassan (PLD 1971 Lah. 108). Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate who appeared for the first respondent was of the view that in the facts of the case, no hearing was necessary to be afforded to the original allottee, whose successors-in-interest the petitioners herein are. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are inclined to grant leave to appeal to consider the question among others whether the petitioners were entitled to be heard by the Settlement Commissioner, whether they were served with a notice of the proceedings before him and if not what is its effect. The parties are directed to maintain status quo Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate, prayed (1) that as the parties have been litigating since 1963, the appeal should be heard at an early date and (2) that as all the parties are now before the Court, the question whether the. Land is urban or agricultural land should be, to save time and expense and to save them of the ordeal of another remand, be finally decided by this Court."
5. It appears that during the hearing of the appeal, appellants i.e. Petitioners in Civil Review Petition No. 106 of 1998 challenged the legality of transfer of entire chunk of property in favour of Major (R)
Barkat Ali in the perspective of status and nature of the property allotted to them and this Court, after full dress hearing, spread over four days, and after summoning the record of the property including the auction proceedings, held that the land measuring 6 kanals, 2 marlas claimed by the appellants was building site. After examination of the record in-depth and the transfer documents initially describing the properties auctioned as properties Nos. 1/1 to 1/15 Kharian comprising Khara No. 4551/271 this Court concluded that Khasra No. 4550/271, measuring 39 kanals, 15 marlas, claimed by Major (R) Barkat Ali as having been auctioned in his favour actually owned by Boota Singh could not be considered to stand included merely because of mention of Khasra No. 4550 in the bid sheet at the time of auction or may be the said khasra number was added after the auction later on. It was held that auction purchaser in his applications submitted in 1963-64 to the Settlement Authorities had clandestinely included Khasra No. 4550 and in view of said unauthorized claim some of the letters issued by the Settlement Authorities also made mention of this khasra number, which could not be made the basis for claiming transfer of 39 kanals, 15 marlas in addition to Khasra No. 4551/271. Memo, dated 31.8.1970 addressed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner requiring the auction purchaser to deposit Rs. 12,200/-, as balance of total transfer price of 72 kanals, 11 marlas, was held to be a mala fide act of the said officer. While dismissing the appeal, it was held that approval of the auction proceedings conveyed by the Settlement Commissioner (Policy), Lahore vide memo, dated 31.7.1964 proved legal justification for transferring properties Nos. 1/1 to 1/15 of Khasra No. 4551/271 measuring 32 kanals, 16 marlas and was upheld.
Consequently, contentions of the appellants to the legality of transfer to the extent of aforesaid property were repelled.
6. While petitioner in Review Petition No. 88 of 1998 is aggrieved by the judgment to the extent of excluding Khasra No. 4550/271 measuring 39 kanals, 15 marlas from his title documents, Review Petitions Nos. 106 and 127 of 1998 have been filed to call into question the finding as to the nature of the land allotted to their predecessors-in- interest i.e. Abdul Aziz and Boota before the auction of the property in favour of Chaudhry Barkat Ali.
7. At the conclusion of hearing on 27.5.2004 we had orally announced the dismissal of Civil Review Petition No. 88 of 1998 and allowing of Civil Review Petitions Nos. 106 and .127 of 1998 but, during the course of dictating the judgment, it was noticed that certain important questions of fact and law required clarification and elaboration, therefore, oral judgment was. Recalled and review petitions were ordered to be listed for rehearing. These petitions were, therefore, reheard on 13.12.2004 and are being disposed of accordingly.
7-A. Mr. S.M. Masood, learned ASC raised preliminary objection to the rehearing of these petitions on the premise that, at the conclusion of the hearing, judgment was orally announced, which is final in terms of Order X, Rule 1, CPC and, thus, could not be recalled. Learned counsel referred to a judgment of the Indian Supreme Court Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University (1989 MLD 3215). We are conscious of the legal position and are firmly of the view that this Court is fully competent to recall an order orally announced and rehear a petition on merits in order to forester the ends of justice rather than to create anomalies. The ratio of the reported case appears to be that the Courts should resort to this practice under exceptional circumstances. There can be no cavil with the proposition of law, the facts remains that it is the prerogative of this Court to obtain clarifications on questions of fact as well as law in order to arrive at a just, fair and right conclusion.
Even otherwise, neither of the parties are likely to be prejudiced by rehearing of the petitions, as no alteration is proposed in the judgment announced earlier. It may, however, be pertinent to observe that this Court possesses inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. Such jurisdiction is vested in this Court under Order XXXIII, Rule 6 of the Supreme Court of Pakistan Rules, 1980. Indeed there appears to be no restriction on the power of this Court to rehear and decide a case, subject to the jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution or by or under any law within the purview of Article 175(2) of the Constitution.
8. Raja Muhammad Anwar, learned Sr. ASC for the petitioner in Review Petition No. 88 of 1998 vehemently contended that the issue of transfer of Khasra No. 4550/271 measuring 39-15 kanals was neither agitated before the Settlement Authorities nor before the High Court, and as such, this Court transgressed its jurisdiction and travelled beyond the scope of the dispute raised before it, therefore, the judgment suffers from error apparent on the face of record. Learned counsel has taken us through various documents with a view to persuade us to hold that since the petitioner was hot heard on this aspect of the case, he could not be deprived of valuable property, lawfully transferred in his favour by the Settlement Authorities, for valuable consideration, notwithstanding the circumstance that by now he has transferred many properties in favour of different persons, who have acquired valuable right, interest and title to the property.
9. Conversely, M/s. S.M. Masood and Sheikh Zamir Hussain, learned ASCs strenuously supported the findings recorded in the judgment under review with regard to the transfer of Khasra No. 4551/271 in favour of Major (R) Barkat Ali and agitated that the status of agricultural land measuring 2 kanals, 2 marlas and 4 kanals respectively transferred in favour of their predecessors-in-interest in satisfaction of their verified claims in the year 1960 was wrongly found by this Court as building site by misconstruing the documents on record and wrong application of law.
10. As to the submission of Raja Muhammad Anwar, Sr. ASC that the petitioner was not heard on this issue by the, Court, learned counsel have invited our attention to a part of the order dated 21.4.1996, which reads as under:- "4. Raja Muhammad Anwar, Advocate, prayed (1) that as the parties have been litigating since 1963 the appeal should be heard by an early date and (2) that as all the parties are now before the Court, the question whether the land is urban or agricultural land should be, to save time and expense and to save them of the ordeal of another remand, be finally decided by this Court."
11. Raja Muhammad Anwar, learned Sr. ASC for the petitioner-Major (R) Barkat Ali vehemently contended with all emphasis at his command that the question of transfer of land measuring 39 kanals, 15 marlas comprising Khara No. 4550/271 was never in issue before the High Court or before this Court at the hearing of the appeal and that petitioner-Major (R) Barkat Ali has been illegally nonsuited on the question of transfer of this piece of land and deprived of its benefits without an opportunity of hearing.
12. Conversely, Mr. S.M. Masood, learned ASC for petitioners Qaim Din and others in Civil Review Petition No. 106 of 1998 and Sheikh Zamir Hussain, learned ASC for the petitioners Muhammad Asghar and others in Civil Review Petition No. 127 of 1998 controverted the submission of the learned counsel by stating that the question of transfer of this piece of land was always under controversy and even reviewed by the Settlement Authorities, which was strongly agitated before this Court as well at the hearing of the appeal.
13. Adverting to the principles governing the exercise of the power of review of this Court, it is well- settled that every judgment pronounced by this Court is presumed to be final, solemn and well- considered covering all points arising out of the case. If the Court has taken a conscious and deliberate decision on a point of fact or law, a review petition will not be competent. The circumstance that the view canvassed in the review petition is more reasonable than the view already accepted by the Court in the impugned order, of which review is sought, would not be sufficient to maintain a review petition. Likewise, factum that a material irregularity was committed by the Court would not be adequate enough to warrant a review of the judgment unless the material irregularity be of a nature so as to convert the process of acting in aid of justice to a process of gross injustice. In such eventuality, a review petition would be competent. Similarly, fact that the conclusion drawn in a judgment is wrong would not warrant review of the same but if the conclusion is wrong because something manifest has been ignored by the Court or the Court has not considered an important aspect of the matter, a review petition would lie. Furthermore, principle of law is well-recognised that this Court would not exercise the power of review as a routine matter to rehear a case already decided but the same can be pressed into service where a glaring omission on the face of record or patent error has crept in the judgment by judicial fallibility.
14. We have carefully considered the submission of the learned counsel with the assistance of the relevant record and found that this issue was not only enquired into by the Settlement Authorities but at one stage findings were recorded against petitioner-Major (R) Barkat AN and he was found to have manipulated the insertion of Khasra No. 4550/271 measuring 39 kanals, 15 marlas in the transfer documents illegally in connivance with subordinate officials of the department. This submission was also raised at the hearing of the appeal as reflected in paragraphs Nos. 14 and 15 of the judgment under review. Third contention raised by Mr. S.M. Masood recorded in paragraph No. 15 of the judgment reads as under:-- "Thirdly, though the plots, which were clubbed together measured 32 kanals, 16 marlas comprising Khasra No. 4551/271 but unauthorisedly Khasra No. 4550/271 was added in the PTD and without any basis or any judicial order the total area shown to be transferred was taken as measuring 72 kanals, 11 marlas."
15. Raja Muhammad Anwar, learned Sr. ASC had taken serious exception to this aspect of the argument as reflected in paragraph No. 16 of the judgment under review but he did not pursue his argument when his attention was drawn to the order wherein the said contention had been noted as one amongst others. Learned counsel heavily relied upon Azmat Ali v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (PLD 1964 S.C. 260) and Jannat Bibi v. Sher Muhammad (1988 SCMR 1696). The ratio of the afore-referred cases appears to be that a party is not permitted to deviate from his or her pleadings nor can a Court set up a different plea for a party and decide the suit on that basis, much less at the appellate stage. There can be no cavil with this legal proposition which is well-settled, the fact remains that in the instant appeal the issue was live before this Court and agitated at length with reference to various orders passed by officers of the Settlement hierarchy under the Settlement and Rehabilitation Laws. Petitioner- Major (R) Barkat Ali was, therefore, neither taken by surprise nor materially prejudiced in defending the cause before this Court. On re- assessm ent of various orders and documents placed on record, we are of the considered view that finding of fact recorded by this Court does not suffer from misreading of record or any error of law affecting the jurisdiction of this Court. Needless to emphasise, only 15 properties comprising demolished houses/shops/ahatas were clubbed together and put to auction against reserve price of Rs. 1,32,900/-, without clearly mentioning the khasra number and the area, that is why petitioner- Major (R) Barkat Ali chose to offer the highest bid of Rs. 90,000/-, which was much less than the reserve price. Evidently petitioner-Major (R) Barkat Ali had moved the Settlement Authorities through several miscellaneous applications claiming both the khasra numbers without any legal justification, which crept into the record by sheer over sight or connivance and found place in subsequent letters as well as PTO, after confirmation of the auction proceedings. At subsequent stage, the error appears to have been rectified by not mentioning the particulars of khasra numbers or the area of the property in the P.T.D. Issued in favour of petitioner-Major (R) Barkat Ali.
However, photocopy of the P.T.D. Placed at page 112 of the original paper book bore the additional words "(plot measuring 72 kanals 11 marlas)".
16. Another vital factor, which found favour with this Court while deciding this issue against petitioner-Major (R) Barkat Ali appears to be non-production of the original P.T.D. Before the Bench, when called upon to do so, though the hearing of the appeal continued for four long days. Even judgment was announced after 16 days of conclusion of the arguments. When confronted with this position Raja Muhammad Anwar, learned Sr. ASC attempted to justify the attitude 6f petitioner by saying that Major (R) Barkat Ali was called upon by the Court all of the sudden to produce the original P.T.D., which he could not do, for want of original document with him. We are not persuaded to accept this explanation as sufficient and plausible ground for withholding original P.T.D. From the Court at the hearing of the appeal, which continued for four long days. Finding, so recorded by this Court, therefore, does not suffer from any misreading of record or error of jurisdiction.
17. While referring to Azmat Ali's case (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court has held that where it is felt that questions have been left undecided by a Tribunal or authority or a question has to be decided after taking fresh evidence, it is more appropriate to return the case to the authority or Tribunal concerned for a decision in accordance with law, after quashing the order complained against. Essentially the submission proceeds on the premise that, instead of deciding the question of entitlement of petitioner-Major (R) Barkat Ali to the land transferred to him under the Settlement Laws, this Court ought to have remanded the case to the forums below. In our view, this submission of the learned counsel runs contrary to the argument advanced at the stage praying that as the parties had been litigating since 1963, the appeal should be heard at an early date and that, as the parties were now before the Court, the question whether the land is urban or agricultural land should be, to save time and expense and to save them of the ordeal of another remand, be finally decided by this Court. If the learned counsel had suggested at the stage on 21.4.1996 to decide the question of nature of land transferred in favour of the predecessors of the respondents prior to the auction proceedings in favour of petitioner-Major
(R) Barkat Ali, he cannot be permitted to agitate that the question of title to land transferred in favour of petitioner should not have been decided or that this Court ought to have remanded the issue relating to. Actual entitlement and transfer of the property in favour of petitioner-Major (R)
Barkat Ali to the Settlement Authorities. Indeed such issue could not be decided in isolation from the determination of status of land transferred to Qaim Din and others.
18. Let us now advert to the submission of Mr. S.M. Masood, learned ASC for the petitioners in CiVil Review Petition No. 106 of 1998, supported by Sheikh Zamir Hussain, learned ASC for the petitioners in Civil Review Petition No. 127 of 1998 that it was wrongly held by this Court in the impugned judgment that 6 kanals, 2 marlas of land transferred in favour of Abdul Aziz and Boota had lost its status as agricultural land and was in fact building site. Learned counsel has heavily relied upon the provisions contained in Sections 15 and 16 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, which, according to him, stipulate that the land transferred in favour of a person under the provisions of Act XXVII of 1958 shall vest in him and that such act or order shall not be called into question.
19. While Section 15 of the Act XXVII of 1958 deals with permanent settlement in lands and does not appear to be relevant to the issue, Section 16 unambiguously stipulates that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the land, on which a displaced person is permanently settled under this Act, shall vest absolutely in such person.
20. As mentioned in the narrative of this judgment, land measuring 6 kanals, 2 marlas was allotted to Abdul Aziz and Boota somewhere in the year 1960 in satisfaction of their verified claims as agricultural land. Evidently, the allottees remained in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land allotted to them and it was at the instance of petitioner-Major (R) Barkat Ali that, after a long line of litigation, it was found by Additional Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala vide order dated 25th January, 1995 that such land being not put to agricultural use since long would in fact fall within the mischief of "building site" within the definition of the expression as contained in para 13 of the Schedule to Act XXVIII of 1958. However, the fact remains that till the date of this order, the land was treated as agricultural land, even though recorded as Ghair Mumkin in the revenue record.
Meanwhile! The allottees had not only matured their right, title and interest to the land but also disposed of the same in favour of third party, wha have raised huge construction by investing a lot of amount over it. By no stretch of authority in law or equity, was it just on the part of Settlement Authority, High Court or this Court to enter into this disputed question after lapse of more than three decades. The High Court as well as this Court essentially being the Courts of Record are not expected to interfere with or disturb the settled position and established facts on record or to exercise their discretionary jurisdiction tending to interfere with valuable, vested and guaranteed rights of the citizens protected by the Constitution.
21. Assuming for the sake of argument that the finding so recorded was justifiable in the facts on record, petitioners-transferees could not be completely deprived of the land, transferred to them in satisfaction of their verified claims and which permanently vested in them more than three decades earlier. It would have been just, fair, proper and reasonable for the Settlement Authorities to transfer such land, even if treated as evacuee building site, under Settlement Scheme No. VIII framed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, in exercise of the powers under sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Act XXVIII of 1958. Evidently, the petitioners being holders of verified claims in law would be entitled to the retention of such property being evacuee property in recognition of their rights as it nobody's case that they had manoeuvred or manipulated the allotment of land in their favour. It may be recalled that on the earlier occasion Additional Settlement Commissioner, Gujranwala had declined to interfere with their allotment under Sections 10 and 11 of the Act X^VII of 1958 vide order dated 24.6.1975 for a valid and strong reason that the land had already been allotted as agricultural land prior to the auction proceedings which finding hardly called for any review.
22. There is another aspect of the case. It is well- entrenched principle of law that superior Courts always act in aid of justice and may at times refuse to interfere with an illegal order if it results in grave injustice. It would be highly unjust, unfair and illogical to deprive a citizen of his valuable right to property acquired as of right merely at the instance of a party to whom such land was wrongly transferred through auction owing to the lapse or connivance of the public functionaries or otherwise. The very fact that the allottees exercised their rights and enjoyed possession throughout would certainly lean in their favour rather than in favour of an auction purchaser, who could be compensated by offering alternate property in order to maintain balance and to do complete justice between the parties. There is considerable substance in the submission of the petitioners:Qa im Din and others' counsel that land stood permanently settled and absolutely vested in the transferees by virtue of Section 16 of the Act XXVII of 1958, which commences.with non- obstante clause by the use of expression "not-landing anything contained in any other law for the thirt^owing in force". Undoubtedly, this provision of law would override any other law for the time being in force and would have primacy over any other law relating to the nature or status of property. In our considered opinion, petitioners-Qaim Din and others could not be non-suited merely on hyper- technical grounds, as it would amount to re-opening past and closed transaction leading to grave injustice. The circumstances alluded to in the preceding lines would show that the cannons of equity lean heavily in favour of the petitioners. It is by now a well-settled principle governing the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction that the High Court may not interfere with an order notwithstanding its void or illegal dimension if it leads to greater injustice. In Secretary to Government of Punjab v. Ghulam Nabi (PLD 2001 S.C. 415), this Court while dealing with such case at page 432 held as under:-- "Therefore, High Court is not bound to grant relief to a petitioner simply because he was legally entitled to it, if the grant of such relief immoral, unfair or against the dictates of good conscience and fairplay." (1990 MLD 2192 (DB)). It hardly needs any elaboration that High Court is not obliged to press into service its Constitutional jurisdiction in every case in which illegality or void auction or order is impugned. The Court is to see, whether the grant of relief prayed for will foster the cause of justice or will it perpetuate injustice. If the Court finds that in a given case though the action taken by the authority is illegal but setting aside of such an illegal action would result in miscarriage of justice instead of advancing he cause of justice, the Court may decline to press into service its Constitutional jurisdiction."
23. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that the judgment under review suffers from error apparent on the face of record and violative of settled principles governing the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
24. Resultantly, we would dismiss Civil Review Petition No. 88 of 1998 and allow Review Petitions Nos.
106 and 127 of 1998 with the aforesaid observations and findings. 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.