Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 68

VICE CHANCELLOR vs ZILADAR KHAN ETC

CitationK.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 68
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.I.C.A. No.263 of 1990,
Date1991-04-08
Judge(s)Irshad Hasan Khan, Muhammad Arif
ResultN/A

IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.- This Intra-Court Appeal arises out of the Judgment dated 7.11.1990 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 239-R/87 in a settlement matter.

2. The brief facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the respondents moved a petition before the Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, for implementation of order dated 24.2.1956 passed by the Deputy Rehabilitation and Settlement Commissioner, Faisalabad, in connection with the allotment of the land in dispute in their favour. Their petition was dismissed by the Additional Revenue Commissioner, Punjab, vide order dated 26.7.1987 on the ground that no action could be taken after the repeal of the Settlement Laws in 1974. The contesting respondents feeling aggrieved, filed Writ Petition No. 239-R/87 which was accepted by the leamed Single Judge of this Court vide Judgment 7.11.1990 on the ground that the application was covered by "pending proceedings" within the purview of section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, and, therefore, the Notified Officer was under a statutory duty to dispose of the petitioner of the contesting respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant inter-alia contends that there is no evidence on record that the land in dispute was or ever treated as evacuee property. On the contrary, it is argued that the record shows that it belonged to the Government and had been transferred to the appellant as far back as 1962 and, therefore, the Notified Officer has no jurisdiction to deal with the disputed land in any manner whatsoever.

4. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the case. Suffice is to say that the dispute in this appeal has arisen out of proceedings before the Settlement Authorities in which the original order of allotment was subject to appeal, review and revision and, therefore, this Intra-Court Appeal is not maintainable by virtue of the Porviso to sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972). This Intra-Court Appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed being incompetent, with no order as to costs.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch