1984 PLP 927 (CLC)

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑ ‑‑ S. 4‑Limitation‑‑Copy‑‑‑given on photostat copy of judgment under appeal delivered to appel lant‑Time from date of application to delivery excluded. (b) Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑‑‑ Ss. 10 & I1‑Allotment of garden‑Copy of R L. Il placed on record showing that units of garden had already been adjusted‑ Question of cancellation of allotment , of garden, held, not arising‑Cancellation order, rightly set aside by High Court‑ Interference in letters patent appeal not justified. JUDGMENT ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.‑Muhammad Rafique, respondent No. 2, Nawab Din respondent No. 3 and Ghulam Muhammad pre decessor‑in‑interest of respondents Nos. 4 to 13, being allottees of garden were issued show‑cause notice for failing to get the garden adjusted against their entitlement on 23rd December, 1960, as to why .their allot ment be not cancelled, in reply to which they filed an application before the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner alongwith the copy of R. L. II showing that units for the allotment have since been adjusted. No further action was taken. Subsequently, Mr. E. U. Mahmud, Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on 29th June, 1964 cancelled 8 Acres of the garden and allotted the same to the appellant. The respondents' appeal having failed, they filed writ petition No. 280‑R of 1965. A report was called for. The learned Single Judge held that "the application of the respondents (Annexure R. 4) shows that the units had in fact been adjusted." The‑ order of Mr. E. U. Mabmud, Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis sioner was found to be without lawful authority .and of no legal effect, which was so declared. This is vide order, dated 6th April, 1971. The subsequent allottee has filed this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondents had not got their units adjusted against the garden and; therefore, the cancellation of the allotment was valid and the allotment of the garden in favour of the appellant was perfectly correct..

3. The. learned counsel appearing for the respondents have sub mitted that the appeal is barred by time and the appellant has no right to maintain this appeal because it is none of his concern as to whether the units had been adjusted for the allotment of the garden or not, even though in fact, they submit, units had been adjusted. A copy of R. L. II was placed before the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on 27th December, 1960 and that is why the Officer was satisfied therewith and consequently no further action was tares.

4. In reply, the learned counsel. for the appellant has submitted that he had applied for certified copy of the judgment to file an appeal. but only a photo copy was given and. that too, on 17th May, 1971 and, therefore, there was no delay.

5. Taking the question of limitation first, we have seen the copy of the judgment under appeal delivered to the appellant. It is a Photo stat copy and it is hardly readable. No date of delivery was appeared given to the appellant and, therefore, counting the time from the date of application to the delivery and excluding the same, the appeal is .not out of time. Therefore, the appeal proceeds to decision on merits.

6. From the perusal of R. L. 11 produced by the learned counsel for[ the respondents and‑ placed on record,. it appears that the units of the garden hard already been adjusted ; and. as stated in the report copy of the R. L. II was filed before the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on 23rd December, 1960 and that is way no further action was taken on the show‑cause notice earlier issued. The learned Single Judge has also held that the units had already been adjusted. In this view of the matter, there was no question of cancellation of the allotment by Mr. E. U. Mahmud, Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. The learned Single Judge has rightly determined the dispute. There is no justification for interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, but in the circumstances, there is no order as to costs. M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed