| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 2244 1992 SLD 2244 1992 PLJ 29 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1991, dismissed on 8.3.1992 [On appeal from order of High Court, Dated 30.6.1991, in Writ Petition No. 14 of 1981] Date of hearing: 29.2.1992.
Present: SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, CJ AND BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J
Sh. Abdul Aziz, Advocate for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1991, dismissed on 8.3.1992 [On appeal from order of High Court, Dated 30.6.1991, in Writ Petition No. 14 of 1981] Date of hearing: 29.2.1992.
Present: SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, CJ AND BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J
Sh. Abdul Aziz, Advocate for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondents
BASHIR AHMAD KHAN--Appellant
VS
CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY, MUZAFFRABAD and another--Respondents
Law:
Section:
(i) Rehabilitation Act, 1956 (XLII of 1956)-- —-S. 12 read with Pakistan Rehabilitation Rules, 1951, Rule 10(2), andAdministration of Evacuee Property Act, Section 43(4)-Evacuee land-¬ Allotment of-Revision by respondent No. 1 against allotment-Acceptance of revision—Challenge to—Powers of appeal, revision or review of Custodian under Section 43 of Administration of Evacuee Property Act, pertain to orders passed under Sections 20, 22 or 23 of that Act and not to an order passed by Rehabilitation Commissioner under Rehabilitation laws—Period of limitation in this case, for revision before Custodian, would be ascertained under rule 10 of Pakistan Rehabilitation Rules, 1951 and not under Section 43 of Administration of Evacuee Property Act-High Court should have considered question of limitation and whether delay was condoned by Custodain or not~It is evident that Custodian had condoned delay-Held: Contention that there was no valid ground for condonation of delay in filing revision petition, is not tenable especially when respondent No.2 was not party to proceedings of allotment in favour of appellant. [Pp.3233]AB (ii) Writ jurisdiction-- —Evacuee land—Allotment of—Revision of respondent No.l against allotment-¬ Acceptance of-Challenge to-Even if it is assumed that delay in filing revision petition before Custodian, was not rightly condoned, fact remains that writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised in aid of perpetuation of injustice or to protect an ill-gotten gain by a person-Possession of appellants father over suit land was illegal which was not approved by Custodian or Rehabilitation Authorities-Held: Even if it is found that Custodian was not justified in condoning delay, his order cannot be disturbed in exercise of writ jurisdiction- Appeal dismissed. [Pp.3334]CD PLD 1974 SC 106 and PLD 1973 SC 236 rel. JUDGMENT Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, CJ.-TMs appeal has been directed the judgment of the High Court dated 30.6.1991, whereby the writ petition filed by appellant, herein, was dismissed. Brief…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492