1988 PLP 407 (SCMR)

ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.--The Deputy Claims Commissioner, vide order dated 5th July, 1958, rejected part of the claim of petitioner No.1 and did not confirm a part of the claim of the other petitioners. Separate appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the learned Additional Claims Commissioner by his order dated 26th September, 1959. The petitioners then filed revision petitions against the aforesaid' order passed by the Additional Claims Commissioner, before the Claims Commissioner. In the course of the proceedings the learned Claims Commissioner found that the land claimed by the petitioners was urban agricultural land which should have been properly claimed under Schedule IV and could not, therefore, be assessed under Schedule I as open building site and a Schedule IV filed before him was not entertained at that stage and it was directed by him that they should approach "the Competent Authority if advised for the admission of these forms". In this view of the matter he dismissed the revision petitions of the petitioners.

2. The petitioners filed review applications on 13th March, 1965, against the aforesaid orders which were, however, dismissed by orders dated 26th September, 1966 and 19th November, 1966, on the ground that on account of amendment in law, no review application was competent after 31st March, 1965.

3. The petitioners challenged the order dated 26th September, 1966, passed by the learned Claims Commissioner, on review petitions by means of constitutional petition No.1025-R/1967, before the Lahore High Court, which was accepted by order dated 5th December, 1973, and the case was remanded to the Claims Commissioner for fresh disposal in accordance with the law. The learned Claims Commissioner on remand once again dismissed the review petitions by his order dated 1st January, 1978, on the grounds which appear from the following passage of the order:- "Before the request of the petitioners could be considered their learned counsel was asked to explain the delay in filing the present review petition on 13-3-1965, when the order review of which had been sought was passed as back as 29-9-1964, and announced to the parties. In reply to the query the learned counsel stated that support was lent to his case b5 subsection (3-A) of section 7 of the Registration of Claim; (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956, inserted by the amending Ordinance XIII of 1964, whereunder review petitions could be filed upto 31-3-1965. I am afraid this is not the correct position, In so far as review is concerned it could only be sough within 30 days of order sought to be reviewed. Rule 6 o1 Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Rules, 1955, is very explicit and calls for no discussion. The newly inserted subsection (3-A) of, section 7 of the above Act simply fixed limiting date for suo moto review etc. and its simply intention was to stop re-opening cases after 31-3-1965. But in any case it does not support the case of the petitioners which was badly barred by time.. Even no application for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act had been made."

4. Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the petitioners once again filed constitutional petition No.467-R/1978 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide judgment dated 1st April, 1980.

5. In support of this petition for leave to appeal from the aforesaid judgment of the High Court learned counsel mainly placed reliance on the newly inserted subsection (3-A) of section.7 of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956, which reads as under:- "The Claims Commissioner may, at any time before the thirty first day of March, 1965, after giving notice to the parties concerned, review any order passed under subsection (3)." It is the contention of the learned counsel that this new provision confers an additional power of review upon the Claims Commissioner without providing a period of limitation for any party to move in that regard and therefore as the application for review was submitted by the petitioners on 13th March, 1965 (long before the target date of 31st March 1965) the review petition was not liable to be dismissed on the ground of the bar of limitation. On the plain reading of the aforesaid provision we feel 'that the contention of the learned counsel is misconceived. We cannot agree that the power conferred by section 7, subsection (3-A) is an additional power available to the Claims Commissioner to review his own order passed in exercise of his jurisdiction under the Act. The Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956, was amended by Ordinance XIII of 1964, on 28th December, 1964. Apart from inserting the new subsection (3-A) in section 7, on which reliance has been placed, subsection (4) of that section was also amended by deleting the words "Claims Commissioner or the" and the words "his own order under". It will be seen that even prior to the said amendment in law, the Claims Commissioner had power of reviewing his own order. But after the amendment this power was only preserved with the Additional or Deputy Claims Commissioner as regards any order passed by him or his predecessor in office on an appeal. So far as the Claims Commissioner is concerned his power of review was hedged in by the limitation contained in the newly inserted subsection (3-A). Regard being had to the facts of the present case much before the law was amended the remedy of review under the pre-existing law had become barred by limitation because no application was admittedly made within the prescribed period of 30 days. On a plain reading of subsection 3(A) of section 7, it is clear that the power of review vesting in the Claims, Commissioner that survived the amendment of law, terminated on 31st) March, 1965, with the result that after that date he could not pass any order on review application for lack of subsisting power. The revisional order of the Claims Commissioner which was sought to be reviewed, was passed on 29th September, 1964, and it is not disputed that under the pre-existing law the period of limitation had expired before the amendment in law which came on 28th December, 1964. It is well-settled that a right which had been extinguished under the existing law cannot be revived on account of amendment. In any case the Claims Commissioner was powerless to pass order in the nature of the review after 31st March, 1965. Therefore, in any case the review application filed by the petitioners was of no avail to him.

6. For the foregoing reasons we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. M.I. /S-88/S Petition dismissed.