1986 PLP 2305 (MLD)

‑‑‑S. 2(2)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Revision pending in High Court‑‑Prayer for revision petition to be converted into writ petition declined‑‑Revision was, however, returned to petitioner to be presented within seven days before. Authority. constituted under Act XIV of 1975 with direction to parties to appear before such Authority on specific date‑‑Authority was directed to dispose of matter within six months. M. Arif and Zafar lqbal Bajwa for Petitioners. Ch. Qamar‑ud‑Din Meo for Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Date of hearing: 5th November, 1985. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑The order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner exercising powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, dated 15‑2‑1971 was challenged through Settlement Revision No. 44/71. On difference of opinion of the learned Judge hearing the revision petition expressed on 10‑7‑1979, the matter was referred to a learned third Judge. Before the learned referee Judge, the Assistant Advocate‑General made a submission that the order impugned in the revision petition by amendment of law, vide Evacuee Properties Displaced Persons (Lands) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, had become retrospectively amenable to an appeal before the Settlement Commissioner. This submission was noted by the learned referee Judge on 8‑2‑1981. On 7‑4‑1981, the petitioners in the Settlement Revision filed a miscellaneous application bearing No. C.M. 1090/81 praying that t1le Settlement Revision may be treated as a writ petition and decided under the Constitutional jurisdiction. When the matter was taken up by the learned referee Judge the learned Judge observed that since the point was never taken before the Division Bench in the Settlement Revision, the same was outside the scope of the reference and the point shall be considered by the Division Bench which was seized of the matter originally. It was directed that case be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders. This is, dated 4th of July, 1982. The learned Chief Justice has directed its hearing by this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Settlement Revision can be converted into a writ petition and since the matter has been pending in the High Court for a long time, it may be so converted and disposed of accordingly. Learned counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 states that he has no objection.

3. Since a large number of similar petitions were earlier disposed of by the learned Judges of the Division Benches by returning the same to the then petitioners for presentation before the Settlement Commissioner concerned observing that the time spent in the High Court shall be treated as spent in pursuing proceedings in a wrong Court for purposes of condonation of delay, there is no justification to depart from the said practice and decisions. As regards the delay apprehended by learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties, it is directed that the Settlement Revision shall be returned to the petitioners immediately and as soon as it is received by the petitioners, within the next seven days, it shall be presented before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore who we are told exercises powers of Settlement Commissioners/ Notified Officer under Act XIV of 1975. In order to avoid delay in service on the contesting parties, the parties are directed to appear before the learned Officer on 20th of November, 1985 for further orders. The matter shall be disposed of as soon as possible-maximum within the next six months. The petition is thus disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A.A.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.