1987 PLP 2234 (CLC)

Muhammad Abdul Saleem for Appellant. Muhammad Rafiq Khan for Respondent No.3. Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and

4. Date of hearing: 30th March, 1987. ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑‑ The case of the appellant is that land measuring 565 Kanals 13 Marlas was allotted to a claimant Nathu on 3‑8‑1962 at Khata No. 663 of Register RL‑II of village Manawala Budh Singh, District Sheikhupura. The land was sold and in course of time was purchased by the appellant in the year 1970. However, in proceedings under sections 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 it was found that the claimant's claim had earlier been settled in village Murali Hithar Tehsil Kasur on 17‑11‑1959. During his lifetime and later on his heirs admitted that their claim had been satisfied in Kasur. Consequently, the Settlement Commissioner (Land) with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner Punjab, Lahore vide order dated 2‑8‑1979 cancelled the allotment first mentioned, that is to say, in village Manawala Budh Singh, District Sheikhupura. It was challenged through the Constitutional Petition (WP No. 977/R‑79) which was dismissed on 19‑1‑1980. Hence this Intra‑Court Appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents on whose motion the impugned order was passed has submitted that the Intra‑Court Appeal is not competent because against the original order of allotment in favour of Nathu, appeal and revision were competent and in such situation when an order is challenged in the Constitutional jurisdiction before a learned Single Judge no Intra‑Court Appeal lies against the order of the learned Single Judge. He places reliance on Mst. Karim Baibi and others v Hussain Bakhsh and another P L D 1984 SC 344 and Muhammad Abdullah v. Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Centre‑1, Lahore P L D 1985 SC 107.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that in the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents appeal and revision have been filed and when the last order was passed and was challenged in the writ jurisdiction, it was held that ICA was not competent. In the case in hand, the order challenged before the learned Single Judge was passed under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, 1979 and against the said order, there was no appeal or revision competent or available. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the law enunciated and laid down by the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan in the aforementioned two judgments, it is quite clear that if there is an original order which was appealable or revisable then against the order of a learned Single Judge no ICA is competent notwithstanding the fact that the order brought before the learned Single Judge was itself not appealable or revisable. In this case undeniably the order made in favour of Nathu in the year 1962 was appealable and revisable. The fact that the last impugned order passed by the Settlement Commissioner/ Chief Settlement Commissioner on 12‑10‑1979 was not appealable or revisable is not material.

3. For the foregoing reasons the application is allowed. The appeal, being incompetent is dismissed. In the circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs. A.A. M‑2 23/ L Appeal dismissed.