| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1991 SLG 593 1991 SLD 593 = 1991 PLD 1034 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.381 of 1989, decision dated: 22-05-1991.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J
Q.M. Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants.Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record.
Civil Appeal No.381 of 1989, decision dated: 22-05-1991.
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J
Q.M. Salim, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Appellants.Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz M. Khan, Advocate-on-Record.
Mst. RESHAM BIBI and 4 othersvsMst. EIAHI SAIN and 8 others
Law: Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958
Section: 23
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Section: 185(3),189,199
Law: Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975
Section: 2(l)(2) & (3)
(a) Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)----- S. 23 --- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3) --- Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether the Settlement Authorities were helpless in giving effect to the decision of a Civil Court when the department itself had referred the parties to the said forum for determination of their rights.(b) Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)------ S. 2(l)(2) & (3) --- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.199 & 185 --- Provisions of S.2(1)(2), Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 have not taken away the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution and/or any jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which is conferred on it by the Constitution.The Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 section 2 (1) whereof repealed Settlement Laws, in its subsection (2) could not have taken away the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution and/or any jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which is conferred on it by the Constitution. Thus no presumption should be raised that section 2 (2) has directly or even indirectly taken away the said jurisdiction.This view is further strengthened by the language used in the two parts of subsection (2) one, relating to High Court and the Supreme Court and the other relating to the designated Settlement Authorities. While in the first-part there can be assumed to be a condition that the Settlement Authorities would continue to deal with only those proceedings which immediately before the repeal may be pending before them, in the sense that they would stand transferred for final disposal to the newly designated officers who are commonly known as notified officers. But there is no such pre-condition with regard to the entertaining, hearing and deciding the settlement matters in so far as the High Court , and the Supreme Court are concerned. The reference regarding these two Courts starts with "all cases decided by the clearly shows that the Supreme Court and the High Court would continue to entertain settlement cases within their respective jurisdiction…