Law: Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958

Section: 21(2) (4)

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)--- ----S. 21(2) & (4) [as omitted by Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Ordinance (II of 1962)]---Omission of provisions conferring review jurisdiction---Effect---No inherent power of review vested in statutory Tribunals, such power must be vested by law ---Omisson of provisions conferring review jurisdiction upon Additional Settlement Commissioner--Effect---Order passed after omission of review jurisdiction would be without jurisdiction and coram non judice. Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)--- ----S. 10---Dispute relating to transfer of property in question---Earlier judgment of High Court indicated that part of building wherein portion in question was located was transferred to respondent, however, nothing in such judgment would indicate that portion in question, was transferred to respondent who was laying claim on that portion---Order of Additional Settlement Commissioner including compromise application unmistakably showed that respondent was never allotted or was in exclusive possession of portion in question---Finding of First Appellate Court to the effect that property, in question, belonged to respondent was based on no evidence, therefore, same was set aside while that of Trial Court was restored wherein claim of respondent was declined. Kazi Munawar Ali for Applicant. Respondent in person. Dates of hearing: 17th and 18th August, 1998.   JUDGMENT The brief facts leading to the filing of this revision application are that the predecessor of the applicant one Fateh Muhammad, who was allotted a portion on the first floor of House No.E/2841 Fort Area, Hyderabad, by the Settlement Authorities. The respondents were residing in a cell which, according to the applicant was a part and parcel of the portion allotted to him. The original orders of allotment do not appear to be available on the record. However, it appears that the predecessor-in-interest of the applicant Fateh Muhammad and that of the respondents Abrar Hussain preferred their claims to the aforesaid Cell (disputed property) byway of revision which…