Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 101 of 1973, decided on 8th October 1973,
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 26th February 1973 in Writ Petition No. 328/R of 1971).
--‑‑Art. I99‑.Writ jurisdiction.‑Discretionary High Court not bound to interfere in case substantial justice done even though proceedings initiated irregularly or legal objection to impugned order was maintainable.
A. R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Kh. Wall Mohammed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Advocate Supreme instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 8th October 1973.
The petitioners were allotted lands equivalent to 1420 P. I. units in village Koreki, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot. Then again on the 13th of January, 1969, they were given lands in lieu of 182 P. I. units in the same area. As against this order respondent No. 1 went up in appeal which was accepted and the land last granted to the petitioners was cancelled. They went up in revision to the Settlement Commissioner, but the revision was dismissed on the 10th of April, 1971. They challenged this order by a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, but the writ petition was dismissed because it was found that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had relied on an earlier order passed by another Additional Settlement Commissioner on the 23rd February, 1967, in a proceeding to which the petitioners were parties and the question of the classification of their lands was determined therein. That order had become final and, therefore, the same question could not be re‑opened. 1n the circumstances, although there was a question as to whether the appeal of Ali Akbar was within time or not, the High Court refused to interfere.
Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition complains that the High Court has refused to quash an order which was on the face of it without jurisdiction.
Under the writ jurisdiction the High Court has a discretion and it is not bound to interfere in a case where substantial justice has been done even though the proceedings in which this justice has been done were initiated irregularly or a legal objection to the order in maintainable.
In the present case, we are satisfied that the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner passed on the 23rd of February 1967 regarding the classification of the lands was not challenged any further and therefore, it became final and so the question of classification could not be re‑opened again in other proceedings.
This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer