1974 PLP 184 (SCMR)

Date of hearing : 8th October 1973. ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against an order made by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court on the 26th of February 1973, whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner Abdul Ghani under clause 10 of the Letters Patent in respect of the transfer of an evacuee house situate in Canal Park, Lahore, was dismissed. The petitioner had submitted an application in form CH for the transfer of the house, but tile same was transferred by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 2y‑7‑1960 to Ghulam Qadir, the father of respondent No. 4 Muhammad Sharif, on the basis of the latter's prior possession as a regular allottee. In the year 1961, the petitioner filed a review petition and also tiled a time‑barred appeal on 13‑9‑1961. The review petition was dismissed on account of the pendency of the appeal, and the appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner on 1y‑12‑1962 on account of being barred by time, with no satisfactory explanation for the delay. 'The petitioner thereupon tiled a revision petition but tote same was dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 7‑1‑1963. The petitioner then invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, but failed. As already stated, his appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent has also been dismissed. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, the Settlement Commissioner and the learned Judges of; the High Court have failed to take note of the fact that the delay which occurred on the part of the petitioner in tiling the appeal ‑was due to his prosecuting an alternate remedy by way of review, and, therefore, it was a fit case in which the delay should have been condoned and his appeal against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner should have been heard on merits. It is next contended that in any case, .the respondent Muhammad Sharif being a non‑claimant was not entitled to apply in form CH and could not get preference as compared to the petitioner, who is admittedly a claimant displaced person. There is no merit in these submissions. The Settlement authorities as well as the learned Judges of the High Court have held that respondent Muhammad Sharif had acted merely as an attorney for his father Uhulam Qadir who was admittedly a claimant. It is, therefore, clear ,that the application was on behalf of the respondents' father. As regards the delay, the power to condone the same vested in the Additional Settlement Commissioner acting in appeal, and the higher authorities in the Settlement hierarchy, or the High Court could interfere with the exercise of that discretion only if it was shown that it had not been exercised on correct and judicious principles. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner consciously considered the question of delay and refused to condone the same. He has given good reasons for the view he took in this behalf. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner's order was made on 29‑7‑1960, whereas an. application for a copy thereof teas not made until the 5th of September 1961. 1'he copy was supplied within four days but the appeal was not filed until the 13th of September 1961. Even the application for review was filed in 1961, i.e., much after the period of limita tion allowed for filing an appeal had expired. From these facts it is clear that the petitioner was grossly negligent in pursuing the remedy available to him under the law. Such being the case, the Additional Settlement a Commissioner was justified in refusing to condone delay and to examine the petitioner's case on merits. The High Court was similarly right in refusing to interfere. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.