Find a Lawyer

Intra-Court Appeals Nos. 129 and 130 of 1982, decided on 26th May, 1985.

---S..3--Decree for possession granted to plaintiff on condition that he would get decree executed on getting permission from Deputy Commissioner--Deputy Commissioner declined permission--Constitutional petition by plaintiff allowed by High Court remanding case to Deputy Commissioner to consider suitability of plaintiff. in accordance with law--Appellant, held, was not entitled to question order of remand passed by Single Ju-Tg-e- in exercise of his Constitutional discretionary jurisdiction especially after withdrawing Regular Second Appeal against judgment and decree in favour of plaintiff. Jari Ullah Khan for Appellant. Taki Ahmad Khan for Respondent. Nemo for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing: 26th May, 1985.

This order will dispose of I.-C.A. No. 129 and I.-C.A. No. 130 of 1982 as these challenge the same impugned order. 2. One Lt. Nk. Qazi Nur-ul-Haq was allotted land measuring 208 Kanals and 17 Marlas in village Mangian, Tehsil Narowal, District Sialkot in the year 1961. On 8th of Febrjrary, 1966, he entered into an agreement to sell the land to Khurshid Muhammad, appellant. He also made an application to the Naval Headquarters'for a no-objection certificate which was granted in October/December, 1971. The agreement was then completed. The Revenue Authorities were not mutating the land in favour of the appellant when he filed a civil suit which was decreed on 7th of March, 1972 and a mutation was attested in his favour on 14th of March, 1972. Anwar Khan, respondent No.1 who was an owner in the estate, filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption which was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Narowal on 19-1-1976. However, his appeal was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge.,_ Sialkot, vide judgment and decree, dated 3rd of November, 1976 with the condition that he would get the decree executed on getting permission from the Deputy Commissioner concerned. He applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot who declined the request, vide order, dated 27-6-1981. He filed two petitions, Writ Petitions Nos. 3321 of 1981 and 3552 of 1981 which have been allowed by the learned Single Judge remanding the case to the Deputy Commissioner to consider in accordance with para. 6 of the Scheme for Determination of Price, Terms and Conditions for allotment of Land under the Martial Law Regulation No. 9 Zone 'B'. This is, vide order, dated 9-5-1982. Hence, the aforetitled I.C.As. . 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, Khurshid Muhammad, vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge erred in setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, dated 27-6-1981 by which he had deCdned to grant permission to the respondent No.l. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has pointed out that against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkol, dated 3-11-1976 decreeing the suit of his client, Anwar Khan for possession by way of pre-emption, the appellant Khurshid Muhammad had filed R.S.A. No.184/77. The parties entered into a compromise through a deed, dated 21-4-1979. Thereafter, the appellant through an application C.M. No. 3048/79 .applied to withdraw the appeal. The statements of appellant's two attorneys were recorded and two counsel appeared for him. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order, dated 21-5-1979. On 12-10-1983, the appellant filed a civil suit saying that the compromise deed was a forged one. The suit was dismissed on 9-3-1985. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant has gone in appeal against the last mentioned order. 5. There is no denying the fact that through an application,, supported by the two attorneys of the appellant in Court, and in the presence of his two counsel, the appellant had withdrawn his appeal (R.S.A. 184/77) against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, dated 3-11-1976, the effect of which would that the appellant would be bound and in no position to oppose the judgment and decree granted in favour of respondent No.i. The latter has been granted the decree for possession by way of pre-emption on the condition that he would execute the same on getting permission from the Deputy Commissioner. The respondent did apply to the Deputy Commissioner but the latter declined to grant the permission. He filed the Constitutional petitions and has succeeded. The matter has been remitted to the learned Deputy Commissioner for decision in accordance with para. 6 of the Scheme aforementioned. The appellant is not at all entitled in the circumstances of the case narrated above to question A the order of remand passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of his Constitutional discretionery jurisdiction especially after withdrawing the R.S.A. against the judgment and decree in favour of the respondent. 6. In view of what has been stated above, there is no force in these appeals and the same are dismissed with costs. A.A. Appeals dismissed.