Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal N 119-R of 1980, decided on 26th November, 1980.

(On appeal from judgment dated 3-5-1980 of the Lahore High Court in W. P. No. 616-R of 1975).

-- Art. 199-Writ jurisdiction-Petitioner relying upon and making use of order of redemption for protecting possession of disputed property-Held, petitioner cannot be allowed any relief in discretionary writ jurisdiction of High Court after several yeas on basis such order of redemption being illegal and without lawful authority.-[Delay Writ].

Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 26th November, 1980.

-This petition for leave to appeal calls in question judgment dated 3-5-1980 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a writ petition against an order of Custodian, Evacuee Property, was dismissed.

The facts relevant for disposal of this petition, as narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are that the petitioners are occupants of disputed property which was being treated on evacuee property and for which they were paying rent to the Rehabilitation and Settlement Department. Because of being locals they could not claim it for transfer. Respondent No. 1, posing himself to be the' owner of this property, preferred a claim for redemption as, according to him, it was 'under mortgage with evacuee. The case was sent to the Additional Settlement Commissioner as delegatee of the Custodian, who allowed the redemption on 7-5-1969. The petitioners were not parties to these proceedings. On 22-R-1969, the petitioners were ordered to be ejected by the D. S. C. for the benefit of respondent No. 1. The petitioners filed an appeal against this order of ejectment and took the plea that the D. S. C. had no jurisdiction because the property had, on account of order of redemption, gone out of compensation pool. It was allowed in the same year (1969). Learned counsel showed his inability to give the exact date. Respondent No. 1 challenged the appellate order in a revision, which was dismissed by a Settlement Commissioner on 22-2-1972. The petitioners then filed an appeal against the order of redemption dated 7-5-1969, before the Custodian, Evacuee property, who dismissed it on the ground that an appeal against and, order of his delegated was not competent. The petitioners also filed a writ petition, which having been dismissed, they have now sought leave to appeal.

Learned counsel has tried to show that notwithstanding the fact that the order impugned before the learned Custodian was of his delegatee, an appeal was competent. It is not necessary for us to examine this question as the writ petition (as also this petition) was liable to be dismissed on account of the conduct of the petitioners. They having relied upon and made use of the order of redemption for protecting their possession in 1969, could not be allowed any relief in discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court after several years, on the basis that, as contended by them, the same order of redemption was illegal and without lawful authority. We, accordingly, dismiss this petition on this ground alone.

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.