1984 PLP 934 (SCMR)

M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑‑The appellant had filed claim bearing No. 8715 Which was consolidated with other claims bearing Nos. 730, 2108, 9253 and 9556. The Deputy Claims Commissioner by his order dated 23‑5‑1959 rifled the claim except Units Nos. 1‑A to 9‑A which were held to be essential urban agricultural land verifiable under Schedule 1V and not Schedule and the concerned claimants including the appellant were directed to file ,Mended claims under Schedule IV. No form under Schedule IV was filed but the claimants other than the appellant agitated the matter. Their appeal failed on 23‑9‑1959 but their revision was accepted on 4‑4‑1960 and their claim was verified under Schedule 1 at Rs. 4,48,000, which amount, in the suit of review at the instance of the other claimants was further increased to Rs. 5,21,600 on 29‑4‑1961, In the meantime, the appellant moved an applicat ion on 7‑5‑1960 before the Claims Commissioner praying that he should also be given pro rata share in the increased value of the clams. When the application was not considered, he moved a review application on 3‑4‑1961 before the Claims Commissioner urging that since the claim of his co‑sharers respect of Units l‑A to 9‑A had been verified, he should also be given half are in the verified amount. His case was that it was an omission on the part of the Claims Commissioner when making his orders dated 4‑4‑1960 and 29‑4‑1961. The plea was rejected on 29‑2‑19'12 by the Claims Commis sioner who held that the appellant having not agitated against the order dated 23‑5‑1959, the acceptance of his prayer would amount to setting aside that order which he had accepted. The appellant challenged the order dated 9‑2‑72 before the High Court but his writ petition was dismissed in limine on 17‑4‑1973 for the short reason that review could not be made after 31‑3‑1965 in view of subsection (3‑A) of section 7 of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, 1956.

2. Leave was granted to consider the contention that the appellant's applications dated 7‑5‑1960 and 3‑4‑1961 before the Claims Commissioner were in essence "independent" (miscellaneous) applications for the allocation of his share out of the joint verified claim, a portion of which, though verified had not been allocated to anybody else and that it was not right to treat the said two applications for review of any previous orders of the Claims authorities.

3. The appellant had obviously acquiesced in the order passed by the Deputy Claims Commissioner on 23‑5‑1959. The prayers in his subsequent applications dated 7‑5‑1960 and 3‑4‑1961 would amount to setting aside that order which could not be done except by recourse to a competent remedy that is, appeal, revision or review. Nor could the appellant seek a share of the benefit achieved, by the other claimants who had persued their remedy under the law. We thus find no merit in this appeal which we accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. M.Z.M Appeal dismissed.