“At this place we would like to observe
that connotation of word
“proceedings” is to be understood with
reference to the text, the law, the
subject-matter, and the intention of
the Legislature discernible from the
overall examination of the aims and
objects of the relevant enactment
under scrutiny. In our view, subsections
(2) and (3) of section 2 leave no room
for doubt, that their intention was to
allow the cases of old applicants for
allotment of land which were pending
on the relevant date of repeal, to
continue so as to be disposed of in
accordance with the provisions of the
Act repealed to which the proceedings
related. There is no ambiguity in this
case that the application of
Rehmatullah for claiming the land in
dispute was under Act XLVII of 1958
and as such it was to continue under the same Act despite its repeal. When
the words used in the statute are “all
proceedings” it is not justified to
diminish the totality of those
proceedings by introducing
jurisprudential concepts, for example
of judicial proceedings, quasi-judicial
proceedings, executive proceedings,
administrative proceedings, penal
proceedings, fiscal proceedings, and
proceedings before a Court etc. the
focus should remain on the words
deployed in the statute and so long as
the proceedings are under the Act
repealed; before the competent
authorities, and are of the kind and for
the purpose indicated in that Act, for
the enforcement of rights mentioned
therein on the applicants concerned,
they are the proceedings which are
saved so as to continue under the
relevant law repealed. The provision
made is of the kind which is contained
in section 6 of the General Clauses Act
X of 1897 where it has never been
doubted that legal proceedings for
enforcement of substantive rights are
such proceedings which can continue
after the repeal of the enactment
under which may they were initiated
and were pending at the relevant
time.”
PLD 1979 S.C 846
Used in Judgment of
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision
637-12
0 comments:
Post a Comment