1994SCMR2005 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑Art.188‑‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R. 1‑‑‑Review of Supreme Court judgment‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed by Supreme Court‑‑Supreme Court, subsequently however, granted leave to appeal to persons who were party to Constitutional petition before High Court in which petitioner was also a party and that Constitutional petition having been jointly filed by petitioner and the persons whom leave to appeal was granted, similar questions of law and fact were involved‑‑‑Petitioner's contention was that if other persons who had been granted leave to appeal, were successful in their appeal petitioner would also benefit in the event of grant of leave to appeal on the acceptance of his review petition‑‑‑Review petition was, however, barred by 120 days for which application for condonation of delay had also been filed‑‑‑Notice was issued to respondents for an early date. Bashir Ahmed Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court with. Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd August, 1992. RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑‑This is a petition by Mst. Mehmooda Siddique, petitioner, seeking review of the order of this Court dated 10‑2‑1992 dismissing her petition for leave to appeal C.P. No. 7 of 1992.

2. The facts of‑the case are that one Mst. Rasuli, posing herself to be the daughter of Khairati, a claimant displaced person, got certain lands allotted in her name. Javed Tariq and others, respondents herein, filed objections under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, before the Settlement Authorities informing them that Mst. Rasuli was neither the daughter of Khairati nor she possessed any genuine claim in lieu whereof transfer of evacuee property could legally be made to her and that the allotment was obtained by her through fraud and collusion. The complaint was investigated into by the Settlement Officer concerned and' ultimately vide the order impugned before the High Court in Writ Petition, the allotment in her favour was declared as fraudulent and cancelled. Mst. Mehmooda Siddique petitioner is a‑transferee from Mst. Rasuli and consequently, she, alongwith Mst. Rasuli and Allah Din, the other transferee, invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for declaring the order of the Settlement Commissioner as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The High Court, vide its order dated 29‑10‑1991, came to the conclusion that the Settlement Commissioner had the exclusive jurisdiction in the matter and as he had, after the appraisal of the evidence available on the file, declared Mst. Rasuli as a fictitious person and not the daughter of Khairati, which was a finding of fact, his decision was not open to challenge in Constitutional jurisdiction. Mst. Mehmooda Siddique, the petitioner, filed petition for leave to appeal C.P.No. 7 of 1992, which was dismissed by this Court on 10‑2‑1992. However, Muhammad Hussain and others, the legal representatives of Allah Din deceased, who had filed petition for leave to appeal C.P.No.1037‑L of 1991 against t1ae same High Court judgment, were lucky as leave was granted to them on 2‑6‑1992. The petitioner therefore seeks review of the said order dated 10‑2‑1992 passed in C.P.No. 7 of 1992.

3. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that this Hon'ble Court after the dismissal of petitioner's petition for leave to appeal (C.P.7/92), granted leave to appeal in case No. C.P. 1037‑L of 1991, titled Muhammad Hussain and others v. Javed Tariq and others on 2‑6‑1992 and that since the case of the petitioner in C.P.No. 1037‑L of 1991 was the same as of the present petitioner, she immediately took steps to file the present review petition, which was instituted on 8‑7‑1992. It is submitted that if the appeal of Muhammad Hussain and others succeeds, the allotment secured by Mst. Rasuli against Claim No. 42744 would be treated as valid, which in term would entitle the present petitioner' to be treated as a valid transferee of the land transferred by Mst. Rasuli to her.

4. The present review petition is barred by 120 days, for which application for condonation of delay has also been filed.

5. Let notice issue to the respondents for an early date. A.A./M‑1966/S Order accordingly.