1985 PLP 898 (SCMR)

The dispute in this regard has been pending since the last 23 years or so. Lastly, by an order made by the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner dated 19‑11‑1978, it was found that an area measuring 9 Kanals 13 Marles and 56 Sq. Ft. was the surplus land attached to the Bungalow. This order was challenged by the respondent, Col. K.M. Sana, by a writ petition before the Lahore High Court W.P. No.67‑R/1979. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court accepted the writ petition by his order dated 15‑1‑1980 and quashed the said order and remanded the case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner with the direction that he may look into the matter himself and after associating the petitioners either direct the completion of the measurement made by the Commis sioner/Chief Settlement Commissioner in November, 1975 or in case he finds such measurement to be incorrect may assign the task to an officer not below the rank of the Additional Settlement Commissioner to have the excess area measured afresh in the presence of the petitioner or his authorised agent. The Chief Settlement Commissioner and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner have filed this petition seeking leave to appeal against the above order of the High Court. The parties have been heard at some length. This case requires examination inter alia, to consider the question whether after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Law (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974 with effect from 1‑7‑1974, the High Court could remand the case to any officer other than the notified officer. The present case at the time of the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 appears to have been pending before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. According to the notification issued by the Government of the Punjab on 16‑11‑1974, the authority notified to dispose of the proceedings at the time of the Repeal of the Act in this case would appear to be the Assistant Commissioner in the District. It is open to question whether the High Court could direct the Chief Settlement Commissioner to deal with the matter after the issuance of the notification aforesaid, under the Repealing Law. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted. The interim order dated 17‑5‑1980 shall continue in operation meanwhile. Since this is a very old case it shall be heard at an early date. C.M.P. No. 1142/1983 in C.P.No.421/1980: This is an application by one Abdul Hamid Khan to be impleaded as a party in the proceedings. The learned counsel for the respondent in the main case (Col. K.M. Sans) vehemently opposes this prayer on the ground that the applicant, after being unsuccessful before the Settlement authorities, had filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed. He then filed an appeal in this Court (C.A.No.118/1969) which too was dismissed and then a review application (R.A.No.22/1966) which also failed. In these circumstances, he has no locus standi to re‑agitate the matter and to be allowed to become a party to the proceedings. Let this application be heard alongwith the main appeal. S. Q Leave granted.