1979 PLP 329 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This is a petition for review of this Court's order dated 7‑5‑1978 rejecting petition for leave to appeal which had arisen out of dismissal of the petitioner's Writ Petition No. 642‑R of 1976 by the High Court. Petitioner's father Sardara along with his two sisters, Saidan and Baigan, who had migrated to Pakistan was allotted land on the basis of his father's land in India. In the mutation proceedings it was claimed that the two sisters had relinquished this right in his favour which was challenged by them in subsequent proceedings and ultimately the High Court in Writ Petition No. 176‑R of 1964 remanded the case to the Settlement Commissioner to decide the question of inheritance in accordance with para. 46 of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme. The Settlement Commissioner on remand held that there was no relinquishment and he accordingly sanctioned the mutation of inheritance of the deceased right‑holder in accordance with para. 46 of the Scheme. The petitioners, as successors of Sardara, instituted a suit in civil Court, which was decreed on 15‑9‑1973. This was challenged in first appeal without success, but the second appeal before the High Court was allowed on 20‑11‑1975. Against this, the, petitioner filed Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1102 of 1975, which was dismissed on 5‑3‑1976. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a Writ Petition No. 642‑R of 1976 on 3‑5‑1976 challenging the order of the Settlement Commissioner passed in 1970. This writ petition was rejected in limine on merits and also for laches. Petitioner's Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 683 of 1976 against this decision was rejected by this Court on 7‑5‑1979. The petitioners now want us to review this order. In support of this petition, it is submitted that aunts of the petitioners had indeed relinquished their claims in favour of the petitioner's father and reliance is now sought to be placed on their affidavits before the civil Court to show that they had relinquished their right in favour of their brother Sardara, father of the present petitioners. Furthermore, an application under Order XLIX, rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules has been made for placing an additional affidavit of one Abdus Sattar in support of their above submission. The proper occasion for the petitioners to have filed these affidavits was alongwith their writ petition in the High Court. But they certainly cannot now be brought on the record and taken into consideration in the present review proceedings. It is also submitted that after the confirmation of the land in favour of the petitioners and the rehabilitation fee having been duly paid, the land was no longer part of the compensation pool and dispute with respect to it was governed by ordinary civil law and not by the settlement and rehabilitation laws. The laches in filing the writ petition before the High Court are sought to be explained on this basis. In other words it is submitted that the civil proceedings were, consequently, undertaken in a bona fide manner and the petitioners are entitled to exclusion of time spent while prosecuting civil litigation. There is no force in this submission because we have already upheld the decision of the High Court on this point, namely, that the proceedings before the civil Court could not be said to be bona fide because clearly the civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. Besides, this point was agitated in the petition for leave to appeal and has been disposed of by us, it cannot be re‑agitated in review. There is, thus, no force in this petition which fails and is dismissed hereby. Petition dismissed.