KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SAEED, J.-- This appeal, with the leave of the Court, has been filed against the judgment of the High Court passed on 17.6.2000, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants against the judgment of the Custodian dated 18.3.1999, was dismissed.
2. The facts relevant for the decision of this appeal, briefly stated are that land measuring 18 marlas comprising new survey No. 620 situate in village Baliah tehsil and district Kotli, was allotted to deceased Maqbool Hussain, who happened to be the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of respondents Nos. 2 to 8, on 8.2.1969 by Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner Kotli. The said allottee obtained proprietary rights from the Custodian on 2.2.1987. He also raised construction of shops on the said land and rented out these shops to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 filed his first review petition before the Custodian of Evacuee Property on 27.1.1992, in which he contended that deceased allottee, Maqbool Hussain, had sold 9 marlas of land to one Muhammad Iqbal and 4 marlas to him before obtaining proprietary rights of the said land from the Custodian. According to him as transfer of the shops and construction of shops in his name was affected without prior permission of the Custodian, therefore, the allotment of the said allottee was liable to be set aside and consequently he was not justified to obtain proprietary rights of the said land. He prayed that by accepting his review petition the proprietary rights granted to deceased allottee alongwith the order of allotment of the land in dispute be cancelled from his name. He also requested that a stay order be issued against deceased allottee restraining him from transferring the said shops to anybody else on the basis of the Proprietary Rights Certificate obtained by him.
3. During the pendency of this review petition, deceased allottee Maqbool Hussain, died and was survived by the present appellants as his legal descendants. This review petition was dismissed by the Custodian vide his order dated 17.10.1997 on two grounds. Firstly, that the attested copy of the Proprietary Rights Certificate issued in favour of allottee Maqbool Hussain was not appended with the review petition as required by law and secondly , the review petition was held barred by limitation. The respondent No. 2 after obtaining attested copy of the Proprietary Rights Certificate filed another review petition before the Custodian on 1.11.1997 in which he reiterated the same facts.
In his fresh review petition he also pleaded that Custodian has got very vast powers of review under section 18-B read with section 43-A of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957. He alternatively requested for the condonation of delay in the light of the facts pleaded by him in his review petition: This time the learned Custodian allowed his review petition and recalled the Proprietary Rights Certificate issued by him in favour of deceased allottee on 2.2.1987 and also cancelled his allotment on the ground that he had constructed, shops over, the suit land without the prior permission of the Custodian as such had violated the conditions of allotment. The learned Custodian kept intact the possession of respondent No. 2, however, directed him to deposit Rs. 50/- as rent per shop from the date of his possession, in his account. The legality and the correctness of this finding of the Custodian was assailed through a writ petition before the High Court on 29.4.1999 by the appellants. Finally the writ petition was dismissed by the said Court on 17.6.2000. The learned Judge in the High Court rejected the objection of the appellants that second review petition was not maintainable before the Custodian. The learned Judge in the High Court placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court titled Muhammad Sajid end 5 others v. Nazir Hussain and another (1999 SCR 336), wherein it is laid down that the successive review petitions are maintainable before the Custodian. The learned Judge in the High Court also hold that the findings of the learned Custodian that allottee had violated The terms and conditions of the allotment, was a disputed question of fact, which cannot be resolved without recording evidence of the parties which was not felt advisible by the learned Judge in the present case. According to the learned Judge the allegation of misreading and non-reading of evidence on the part of Custodian was no proved before him as such, in view of these reasoning, he dismissed the writ petition vide his order dated 17.6.2000, under challenge before us in the present appeal.
4. Mr. M. Riaz Tabassum, the learned counsel for the appellants , argued that the review petition was barred by limitation . He further argued that the 'first review petition of the respondent No. 2 was dismissed by the Custodian as being barred by limitation, therefore, the subsequent review petition was not maintainable before him particularly when in both the review petitions same grounds were raised. He further argued that construction of the shops was raised by Maqbool Hussain, deceased allottee, with the permission of the Municipal Committee. Therefore, in the light of this permission, the Custodian was not justified in law to set aside the allotment order of the Maqbool Hussain, deceased allottee, and recalled the proprietary rights granted in his favour by him. The learned counsel further argued = that the construction of shops raised on the disputed land was within the knowledge of the Custodian's staff, and no objection was raised by them about such construction, therefore, this ground was not available for canceling the allotment of the Maqbool Hussain (deceased). The learned counsel also challenged the findings of the High Court that transfer of the land made in favour of Muhammad Iqbal and respondent No. 2 without the permission of the Custodian was sufficient to cancel his allotment, in a time barred review petition.
He in support of his contention relied on Makham Jan and 5 others v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Muzaffarabad and 2 others (PLJ 2001 SC (AJ&K) 368) + (2001 CLR 892), wherein it is laid down that the transfer of Proprietary Rights Transfer Order could be challenged before Custodian by an aggrieved party by filing a review petition within prescribed period of limitation. According to the learned counsel the review application having not been filed within statutory period of 30 days before the Custodian, was liable to be dismissed by the Custodian.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Yunus Tahir, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, argued that successive review petition can be filed before the Custodian. He in support his contention relied on two authorities of this Court, Muhammad Sajid and 5 others v. Nazir Hussain and another (1999 SCR 336) wherein it is laid down that there is no provision under the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 that second review petition before Custodian is not permissible. In Sardar All and others v. Karamat All Khan and others (1993 SCR 226), it is laid down that successive review petition before custodian is not barred under section 43, sub-section (6) of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957. The learned counsel also relied upon the same authorities that the learned Custodian has unlimited jurisdiction under the provisions of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957 to review any order passed by him or by his predecessor at any time. In Sardar Al.s case it was also laid down that if review petition is decided by Custodian on merits, the question of limitation shall loose importance, and such an order would not be an order with jurisdiction.
6. We have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. It has been repeatedly laid down by this Court that no bar has been laid down in section 43 (6) of the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, that no second review would lie. Therefore, second review petition on fresh grounds can be filed before the Custodian. In the same way in this authority it is laid down that if the Custodian review's an order passed by him or by his predecessor on a time barred review petition, such order of the Custodian would not be an order without jurisdiction. We are in full agreement with the law laid down by this Court earlier in the above referred cases. Therefore, the second review petition filed by respondent No. 2, was maintainable before the Custodian. So far as the question of limitation is concerned no doubt review jurisdiction can be invoked by a party within a period of 30 days as has been expressed by this Court in a case titled Makhan Jan and 5 others v. Custodian of Evacuee Property Azad Jammu and Kashmir Muzaffarabad and 2 others (PLJ 2001 SC (AJ&K) 368) + (2001 CLR 892).
In this case Makhan Jan and others availed right of review before the Custodian. Their review petition was rejected by the learned Custodian on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The order of rejection so passed was assailed in Writ petition before the High Court without success.
The judgment of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court in appeal. This Court also maintained the order passed by the Custodian on the ground that any party interested in availing review jurisdiction of the Custodian must invoke it within a period of 30 days as laid down under the relevant law. The Custodian refused relief to the respondent No. 2 as requested by him rather he cancelled the allotment of the, appellants in suo motu exercise of review jurisdiction to which bar of limitation is not applicable. In the present case the Custodian became aware of this fact that allottee of the land had violated the terms and conditions of allotment, therefore, in this wisdom the allottee was not entitled to retain allotment of land even as refugee and to obtain Proprietary Rights Transfer Order of the same land in his favour, He, therefore, in exercise of the review jurisdiction suo motu recalled the transfer of proprietary rights to the said allottee and also cancelled, his allotment on the basis of which he had secured transfer of proprietary rights in his favour. The Custodian has now taken over this property and has rented out each shop to respondent No. 2 at the rate of Rs. 50/- per month. He has also directed respondent No, 2 to deposit the rent of the shops in Custodian's account from the date of his possession. 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.