Law: Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act, (III of 1956)

Section: 7(3-A), 14(2), 16

(a) Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act ((II of 1956)  S. 7(3-A) [as amended by Displaced Persons Laws Amendment Ordinance (XIII of 1964)]-Amendment effective even on pending cases-Review or revision petitions instituted before 31st March 1965 Cad be disposed of after that date. The contention that with the introduction of the amendment, in section 7 of Act III of 1956, even the pending cases have not been saved, has no force. All that the subsection (3-A) of section 7 of Act III of 1956 means is that after this date the power of review would not be available to the Claim Commissioner so as to enable him to entertain new petitions in this behalf. The pending proceedings would continue to be governed by law operating at that time under which they were instituted and could, therefore,, be disposed of in accordance with that law even after 31st of March, 1965. In this view of the matter if any review or revision petition was pending before 31st of March 1965, in relation to the property in question that was liable to be disposed of in accordance with law. Mirza Mahmood Sharif Beg and 4 others v. Claims Commissioner, Pakistan, Lahore and another P L D 1973 Lah. 114 ref. (b) Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Act (III of 1956) S. 7(3)-Revision-Revisional order passed by Additional Claims Commissioner with special invested powers-Claims Commissioner, held, not competent to exercise same powers on subject. According to law, the order under revision merges in the order passed in revision petition. Once an order has been passed in revision a: second exercise of revisional power would not be competent to determine a mattes which has been determined by the previous order either expressly or by necessary implication. The Additional Claims Commissioner (Scrutiny). was. delegated powers of the Claims Commissioner under section 7(3) of the Act for the purpose of scrutinizing the claim. He after exercising his revisional jurisdiction came to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner was not bogus. According to law it was not competent for the Claims Commissioner of Pakistan to invoke the same provision to exercise revisional jurisdiction, second…