1978 PLP 127 (SCMR)

O. XXVI‑Review‑Available only on ground of discovery of fresh evidence, error apparent on face of record or other sufficient cause‑ None of such grounds pointed out and case virtually re‑argued Wholly unjust and contrary to spirit of Rehabilitation policy to disturb respondents after thirty years‑Review disallowed but peti tioner's case being one of great hardship ordered td be given priority in matter of composition or any other means of satisfaction of her claim available under law.‑[Review]. Ch. Muhammad Hussain Supreme Court And Mahmood A. Quraishi Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents, Date of hearing: 13th November 1977. MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.‑Mst. Fatima Begun petitioner herein seen review of the judgment of this Court dated 10‑10‑1974 whereby her petition for special leave to appeal directed against the order of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 30‑11‑1973 was dismissed. The dispute between the patties relates to allotment of agricultural land in Faisalabad District which was allotted to the respondents in 1947 as sitting allottees and was later confirmed in their name on 30‑5‑1953 against their verified claim. Surprisingly enough without calling to examine the availability, the Garden Committee allotted this land to the petitioner as garden area in 1959 behind the back of the respondents. This led to protracted litigation between the parties and it transpired that although in the revenue record the area was mentioned under garden, no garden worth the name existed at the spot. However, at one stage the Additional Settle ment Commissioner allotted nine Kanals to the petitioner on the ground that it was found to be under garden while the remaining sixteen Kanals were left with the respondents who successfully challenged this order before the Settlement Commissioner whose order was upheld by the learned Judge in the High Court vide his elaborate judgment dated 30‑11‑1973. The points which weighed wish this Court in refusing leave to appeal were, that the respondents were the sitting allottees of the land in continuous possession thereof since 1947 and it would be unfair to dislodge them after thirty years. Again the fresh order of allotment made by the Garden Committee in favour of the petitioner six years after the same land had already been confirmed in favour of the respondents was made exparte behind their back and without their knowledge. Lastly even though in the revenue record, the land was characterized as garden area. no garden as such existed at the spot. While seeking the review, learned counsel has virtually re‑argued the case in disregard of the limited scope of review which could be available only on ground of discovery of fresh evidence, error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient cause, none of which has been pointed out to us. Even though the case of the petitioner also appears to be one of great hardship. It would be wholly unjust and contrary to the spirit of the Rehabilitation policy to disturb the respondents after thirty years. The petition bas no force and is accordingly dismissed. It may, however, b pointed out that the case of the petitioner who is a widow should receive priority in the matter of compensation or any other means of satisfaction of bar claim available under the law. Petition dismissed.