1968 SCMR 547 (PLP)

FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-This order relates to 12 Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals, Nos. K-113 to K-124 of 1967. The petitioners are refugees from non agreed areas in India, Their claims for agricultural land left by them in India were verified under Schedule V by the Claims Officer. On report of the Enforcement Police, Mr. Moghul, the Additional Claims Commissioner in exercise of the suo motu revisional jurisdiction conferred on him under section 7(3) of the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, III of 1956, rejected their claims on 2-7-60. They then filed revision petitions against his order before the Claims Commissioner. The said revision petitions could not be disposed of because by that time Martial Law Regulations 84, 89 and 91 had come into force. During pendency of the revision applications before the Claims Commissioner the Central Record Office under clause 5 of Martial Law Regulation 89 issued entitlement certificates to them in Form M. R. V. These petitioners then filed separate writ petitions in the High Court challenging legality of the order of Mr. Moghul, the Additional Claims Commissioner. All these writ petitions were heard together and disposed of by one judgment, A learned Single Judge of the High Court upheld their contention that Mr. Moghul was not competent to set aside the verified claims of the petitioners. The learned Single Judge was, however, unable to accept their contention that the said, revisions filed by the petitioners before the Claims Commissioner were not in the nature of claims pending verification at the time of the commencement of the said P lation. He, therefore, directed the Chief Settlement and Rehe .tation Commissioner "to place the claims of the petitioners before a competent officer, other than the officer, who passed the 'order dated the 7-9-1964 referred to above for adjudication in accordance with law". This order was upheld by the Letters Patent Bench in appeal. Now, the petitioners seek special leave to appeal against the above order. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the learned Single Judge was not justified in treating the claims of the petitioners as pending on the basis of revision applications filed by them against the order which was nullity in the eye of law. According to him, the basis of revisional applications having been declared to be without jurisdiction by the High Court, the revision applications themselves would become incompetent and non-existent, and that upon the statement made by the representative of the Settlement Authorities Before the learned Single Judge that the revision applications of the petitioners had been rejected as incompetent, the learned Single Judge was not justified in remanding the case for re-verification. The petitioners' case now rests on their M. R. V. Forms. In our opinion, these points require consideration. We accordingly grant leave to appeal as prayed. Status quo to be maintained pending hearing of these appeals. Security-Rs. 1,000 in each case. Petition accepted.