1969 PLP 148 (SCMR)

S. 20 & Sch., Part I‑‑‑Transfer of house Revision against order of transfer dismissed by Chief Settlement Commissioner on ground of inordinate delay‑High Court dismissing petition under Art. 98, Constitution of Pakistan (1962) on ground that the Chief Settlement Commissioner was justified in dismissing revision on ground of lathes although petitioner had a good case otherwise‑Question whether when no period of limitation prescribed for filing revision and when petitioner had a good case, High Court justified in refusing relief‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question. S. M. Masud, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 7th November 1968. ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑‑The dispute in this case relates to house No. NE‑VI‑23‑S‑13, Bharat Nagar, Lahore. The petitioner ant respondent No. 1 filed N. C. H. Forms for the transfer of the house. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the house to Sultan Ahmad. The order was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal filed before the Additional Settlement Commissioner the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner being a non‑claimant was not entitled to the transfer of the house as he had not produced the rent clearance certificate. The case of the petitioner was that being an allottee he had preferential claim to the transfer of the property. The revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that it was hopelessly time‑barred. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by e, learned Single judge of the High Court and the Letters Patent Appeal filed against iliac order of dismissal has also been dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore. The learned judges have taken the view that even though there is no period of limitation for filing a revision petition such a petition can be dismissed by the Chief' Settlement Commissioner on the ground of inordinate delay and laches. In the present case the order in the appeal was passed on the 2nd January 1961 and as the revision petition was filed in November 1961, the order of dismissal passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner was not open to challenge in a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution. On this view of the matter the learned Judges dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal though they thought that on merits the petitioner had a good case. It is contended that as there is no period of limitation for filing a revision and as the revision petition was admitted for hearing the same could not be dismissed for laches at the time of the final hearing. The learned counsel has also argued that the failure to file a revisional application could not be a ground for refusing relief under Article 98 of the Constitution, when on merits the petitioner was found to have a good case. The points raised merit consideration. Leave is granted. Security in the sum of Rs. 1,000. Leave granted.