ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.-This is an application of review of an order passed by our learned Mr. Justice Muhammad Siddique on 28-1-1976 in Writ Petition No. 470/R/1970.
2. Qaimey alias Bhola was allotted land measuring 36 kanals 10 marlas in the urban area of Ahmadpur East, District Bahawalpur. After verification. Of his claim, the area was confirmed in his favour by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) Chairman, Allotment Committee. On 7-11- 1964. Three years later, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land)/Chairman, Allotment Committee, cancelled the allotment on the ground that the verified claim was rural whereas the land allotted was urban. Qaimey filed an appeal which was allowed on the ground that under the instructions a claimant of rural area could be confirmed urban land. This is vide order of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, dated 3-9-1968. On the motion of one Qazi Muhammad Bakhsh, the Additional Settlement Commissioner, thought that aforementioned instructions were not applicable to the facts of the case but he had no jurisdiction to review the previous appellate order therefore, the matter be sent to the Settlement Commissioner and a reference was accordingly made on 13-6-1969 for revision under section 19(2) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, to the Settlement Commissioner. The latter cancelled the allotment from the name of Qaimey vide order dated 1-7-1969. This order was challenged by Qaimey through Writ Petition No. 470/R/70 which was allowed on 28-1-1.976 by our learned brother Mr. Justice Muhammad Siddique on the ground that after the prescribed period of limitation of 90 days, even for suo motu revision, the learned Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. This order is sought to be reviewed on behalf of one Jalal to whom the land had been allotted after the order of the learned Settlement Commissioner dated 1-7-1969 on 23-8- 1969.
3. The contention of the Learned counsel for the applicant, Ch. Qadir Bakbsh, Advocate, is that the order of the learned Settlement Commissioner could have been sustained as he possessed jurisdiction of the Rehabilitation Commissioner and there is no limitation for exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the latter. He has placed reliance on Lahore Improvement Trust v. Custodian, Evacuee Property, W. P., Lahore etc. PLD 1971 SC 811.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is without force. It was laid down in the case quoted by the learned counsel for the applicant that "before an order passed by a public authority is struck down it is the duty of the Court to explore every possible explanation for its validity and examine the entire field of powers conferred on the authority in exercise of which the impugned order has been passed". Reference was made to the Chairman, East Pakistan Railway Board, Chittangong and another v. Abdul Majid Sardar, Ticket Collector PLD 1966SC725 wherein it was remarked that "Acts performed and orders made by public authorities deserve due regard by Courts and every possible explanation for their validity should be explored and the whole field of powers in pursuance to which the public authorities act or perform their functions examined and only then if it is found that the act done, order made or proceedings undertaken is without lawful authority should the Court decline them to be of no legal effect. "In conclusion, it was observed that "to satisfy the requirement of this rule it is the duty of the Court to examine the entire record pertaining to the action taken, order passed and proceedings undertaken which are challenged as without lawful authority under Article 98 of the Constitution. Otherwise grave miscarriage of justice may take place in the exercise of this beneficial jurisdiction. The objection raised by Mr. Ghias Muhammad that the applicants or the Court suo motu could not make report to any document on the record of the Collector, the Trust and the University which was not relied upon in the High Court has, therefore, no substance". Two points may be noted, firstly, the impugned orders were of "public authorities" as distinct from `judicial or quasi judicial authorities". In the case relied upon by the learned counsel, the public authority was the Lahore improvement Trust and in the case referred to the District Traffic Superintendent. The second point to be noted is that the orders related to acquisition proceedings or matters relating to service of large number of persons liable to be affected. In other words, the dispute was of a general nature and not confined to contesting individuals, i. e. The dispute related to matters of administrative character rather than adjudication of individual rights. Lastly, it may be noticed that the judgments lay down that the entire record may be examined to see whether the order passed or proceedings taken were with lawful authority. The judgments do not lay down that if an order is passed under a particular jurisdiction, proceedings taken under a specific statute, if not valid, can be sustained with reference to provisions under a different statute. An example will clarify. A Sessions Judge deciding a criminal case cannot pass a declaratory decree. If he does pass such a decree it cannot be urged in its support that he possessed jurisdiction as a District Judge and could have passed the decree as a District Judge. The two jurisdictions are separate and distinct under two different statutes. Different powers are exerciseable in their own domain as an individual plays his role differently in different spheres. Those cannot be mixed up. Therefore, in the present case the fact that the learned Settlement Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction of a Rehabilitation Commissioner is no ground to sustain his order passed on reference for exercise of his revisional jurisdiction under section 19(2) of a specific statute "Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958" by reference to his revisional jurisdiction under section 11(4) of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956. The two jurisdictions are separate. Their purpose and that of the statutes under which those were conferred are different.
Under the later i. e. The Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, the object was rehabilitation which required constant attention. Under the former, i. e. The Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the object is settlement and it was intended to settle persons and not to keep them under the Sword of Damocles perpetually. Therefore, period of limitation for exercise of revisional jurisdiction was provided for. Hence, the purpose and object of the latter law cannot be frustrated by reference to the former statute meant for different situation. Moreover, an argument not addressed at the hearing cannot, after judgment, if thought out, be made a ground of review. Whatever pleas or arguments are available to a party must be addressed at the time of hearing. After judgment, unknown or new pleas may be taken but not those which could have been urged in the first instance by diligence. The argument addressed by the learned counsel for the applicant now was available to the applicant at the time of hearing of the writ petition. His learned counsel did not think that it was tenable and we may say so with respect to him that he was right. After judgment, the new learned counsel for the applicant cannot be allowed to urge an argument which is clearly an after thought and has no substance either as seen above. Therefore, there is no force in this review application and it is liable to be dismissed on this score.
5. The allotment was made to Qaimey in 1961. It was, on receipt of verified claim, confirmed by the Deputy Settlement; Commissioner (Land) (1) Chairman, Allotment Committee in 1964. Three years later, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Land) (1) Chairman, Allotment Committee, had no jurisdiction to cancel the same. The illegality and injustice was set right on appeal by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner on 3-9-1968. On the motion of Qazi Muhammad Bakhsh, who is no more a party, the Additional Settlement Commissioner could not change his mind and refer the matter for an order in revision. Before the Settlement Commissioner, the applicant in review Jalal, was not even a party. He hag no locus standi to question the adjudication of the order of the Settlement Commissioner by our learned brother Mr. Justice Muhammad Siddique. By attotment subsequently made in his favour, he cannot acquire rights retrospectively to contest the proceedings between Qaimey and the Settlement Authorities. Further, before the admission of the writ petition of Qaimey in which it was alleged that his claim itself was for urban area, a report had been called and after perusal thereof and the document on record, the writ petition was admitted by our learned brother Mr. Justice Dr. Syed Nasim Hassan Shah, now a learned Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Therefore, it is too late in the day to say that the claim was unadjustable. The claim and land were both before the authorities. They had confirmed the allotment in 1964, After fifteen years, they cannot turn round and urge that they should not have confirmed the land. They should have acted diligently and with open eyes. They cannot wake up after a decade and a half. The settled refugees must be allowed to have a sigh of relief at some stage of struggle.
6. For the reasons given above, there is no force or, merit in this review application. It is accordingly dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs in the circumstances.