Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 263 of 1977, decided on 10th August. 1981.

(On appeal from the judgments and order of the Lahore High Court dated 14-2-1977 in W. P. 1867-R/76).

-- Sched. I read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 185(3) Remand order in earlier round of litigation passed by High Court in 1974 but such order not challenged by petitioner-Question with regard to finality of order passed in 1966 cannot consequently be raised by petitioner even on assumption of source of possession of contesting respondent having not been lawful, such question having not been raised in High Court-Room in question having been treated as independent entity petitioner, held, could also not have agitated against its transfer in writ jurisdiction of High Court.-[Remand of case

Talib H. Riavi, Advocate and S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 10th August, 1981

.-Leave to appeal has been sought from order dated 14-2-1977 of the Lahore High Court whereby a constitutional petition arising out of an Urban Settlement case was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. In an earlier round of litigation, the second respondent's plea that his application for transfer of a room needed lawful disposal was accepted by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction and the case was remanded. A Settlement Commissioner transferred the room as an independent unit to the said respondent in 1976. The petitioner challenged this again in the High Court. After hearing the learned counsel to support of the writ petition the learned Judge observed that it was an admitted fact that the room in question was not in possession of the petitioner and that after its transfer to the respondent No. 2, it was an independent property, which could not at all be transferred to the petitioner. The writ petition could have been dismissed on this ground alone. However, other points raised from the petitioner's side were also dealt with.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has in support of this petition contended that the respondent No. 2 was in illegal possession of the room in question and that an earlier order passed against him on 7-12-1966. Having not been challenged by him attained finality, therefore, the case could not have been reopened. The High Court passed the remand order in the earlier round in 1974. The petitioner did not challenge that order. That being so, in question with regard to finality of the order passed in 1966 cannot raise now by the petitioner. Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the source of possession of respondent No. 2 was not lawful, this question not having been raised in the High Court, we are not inclined t permit the same to be raised now. Nor the petitioner can derive any benefit in this behalf because if the room in question has been treated as an in depend dent entity the petitioner could not have agitated against its transfer in write jurisdiction of the High Court, as in that case, he would have had no locus standi to do so. That being so, this petition has no substance and is according 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.