Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 1120 of 1975, decided on 22nd February, 1981.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 10-10-1975 in W. P. 751/11 of 1974).

-- Art. 199 read with Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 11-Writ petition and review, petition on same allega tions earlier dismissed by High Court-Fresh writ petition for same relief not entertained by High Court-Such petition also hit by rule of resjudicata-Conclusion of High Court, held, unexceptionable-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 11.-[Res judicata].

Zafar Yasin, Advocate for Petitioners.

S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 22nd February, 1981.

.-According to the petitioners, out of a total number of 373 P. I. Units 299 P. 1. Units were adjusted in Jhamb, District Sahiwal and the remaining 74 P. I. Units remained unadjusted. However, in accordance with the revised formula the number of P. I. Units was raised to 165 units which were transferred from District Sahiwal to District Bahawalnagar. It came to light that the number of P. 1. Units was surreptitiously increased to 366 which were subsequently cancelled by the Additional Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his powers under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. He was, however, allowed to retain 158 P. I. Units.

The petitioners challenged the cancellation of the Units through a Writ Petitton No. 722-R of 1973 which was dismissed in limine on 28th November, 1973. A review was sought on the ground that the report about the entitle- merit of the petitioners was awaited but the High Court dismissed it. There- after, on the strength of the report dated 6th of February, 1974 of the Central Record Office, that it was willing to reverify their entitlement, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 751-R of 1974 to obtain a direction for the reverification of their entitlement which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that on the same allegations the earlier writ petition and the review petition were dismissed and that it found no reason to entertain this writ petition for the same relief.

The learned counsel contends that the report constitutes a fresh ground to assail the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner but we see no merit in it for the reasons given by the High Court. We would like to observe further that the second writ petition was hit by the rule of resjudicata and, therefore the conclusion of the High Court is unexceptionable.

There is, therefore, no merit in this petition which was dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.