' This petition is directed against the order dated 30-4-1979 passed by the learned Settlement Commissioner, Sind at Karachi, in Revision No, SCK-3/ 1977 (Kyc) Muhammad Hussain v. Amin Hazien and another Revision No, SCK-7/1977 (Kyc) Muhammad Kalimullah v. Amin Hazien and another and Revision No, SCK-13/1977 (Kyc) Qamardin through his L Rs, v. Messrs Sungreen & Co.
Ltd. And 2 others. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that Plot No, 11/13, Survey No, Ry-9, Karachi, was sold by the Hindu Evacuee to Nauman Bhay and others, but the above sale was not confirmed by the Custodian. Eventually the above plot became available for transfer under the Settlement Scheme. Petitioner No, 2, and the legal heirs of late Qamardin i.e, respondents 5 to 12 applied for the transfer of the above entire plot, whereas respondents 3 and 4 applied for the portions of the plot in their respective possession. The above transfer applications were taken up and were disposed of by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner through his order dated 22-1-1977, whereby 906 out of 1866 square yards were allotted to petitioner No,
2. For the balance area the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner ordered that the same would be disposed of as cluster. It may be observed here that above 906 square yards ordered to be transferred to petitioner No, 2 includes the portions of the land in possession of respondents 3 and 4 and therefore they are aggrieved by the above order. It seems that respondents 3, 4 and 5 i,e, legal heirs of late Qamardin filed separate Revision Applications before the learned Settlement Commissioner, Sind at Karachi referred to hereinabove. The above order has also been challenged through Const. Petitions Nos. 4/1977 and 60/1;78. It further seems that the present petitioners raised objection as to the maintainability of the above revision application but the above objection was overruled by an order dated 15-6-1977 passed by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (T & R) Central Settlement Cell at Karachi. It also seems that the petitioners being aggrieved by the above order filed Constitutional Petition No, 63/1977, which was summarily dismissed by a judgment dated 17-12-1977 by a learned Single Judge of this Court. The petitioners being aggrieved by the above order filed Civil Appeal No, K-9/78 which was allowed to the extent that the Settlement Commissioner was directed to decide, the preliminary objection, as to the jurisdiction first before proceeding with the cases. In pursuance of the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Settlement Commissioner Sind by his impugned order dated 30-4-1978 disposed of the above preliminary objection and held that the revision was competent as the claims of the parties were to be adjudicated upon the basis of the repealed law which included the right of appeal and revision. The petitioners being aggrieved by the above order have filed the present.
2. (a) In support of the above petition Mr. Maroof Ali Khan has invited my attention to the case of Muhammad Younus v. Muhammad Younus Khan etc. in which the Supreme Court while dismissing the petition for leave held that a revision is not competent and the order of the High Court was upheld in which it was held that the revision was not competent.
(b) On the other hand Messrs Akhtar Mahmood, Abdul Majeed Khan, Abdul Wahab and K. A.
Wahab, learned counsel for the respondents referred to the judgment of Nawabdin v. Member of Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Punjab, Lahore and 4 other, in which a Bench ' comprising of three learned Judges of the Supreme Court inter alia made the following observations :- "At this place we would like to observe that connotation of word "proceedings" is to be understood with reference to the text, the law, the subject-matter, and the intention of the Legislature discernible from the overall examination of the aims and objects of the relevant enactment under scrutiny, In our view, subsections (2) and (3) of section 2 leave no room for doubt that their intention was to allow the cases of old applicants for allotment of land which were pending on the relevant date of repeal, to continue so as to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the Act repealed to which the proceedings related. There is no ambiguity in this case that the application of Rehmatullah for claiming the land in dispute was under Act XLV II of 1958 and as such it was to continue under the same Act despite its repeal. When the words used in the statute are "all proceedings". It is not justified to diminish the totality of those proceedings by introducing jurisprudential concepts, for example of judicial proceedings, quasi-judicial proceedings, executive proceedings, administrative proceedings, penal rocedings, fiscal proceedings,and proceedings before a court etc. The focus should remain on the words deployed in the statute and got long as the proceedings are under the Act repealed ; before the competent authority ; and of the kind and for the purpose indicated in that Act, for the enforcement of rights mentioned therein of the applicants concerned, they are the proceedings which are saved so as to continue under the relevant law repealed. The provision made is of the kind which is contained in section 6 of the General Clauses Act X of 1897 where it has never been doubted that legal proceedings for enforcement of substantive rights are such proceedings which can continue after the repeal of the enactment under which they were initiated and were pending at the relevant time."
On the basis of the above observations of the Supreme Court, it has been vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the respondents that a revision is competent as their claims are to be determined on the basis of the Repealed Act which contained the right of revision. It may be observed that there is no express observation in the above-cited para. Of the judgment to the effect that a revision is competent, whereas in the judgment relied upon by Mr. Maroof Ali Khan, which is a subsequent judgment in date, it has been expressly held that no revision is competent. In this view of the matter, I am bound to follow the case reported in NLR 1980 SC J 536 and bound to hold that the revision is not competent.1 2
3. For the aforesaid reasons I allow the petition and declare the impugned order as without lawful authority and of no legal affect, but in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. NLR 1980 SC J 536 PLD 1979 SC 846