Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 419‑R of 1985, decided on 11th February, 1986.

(On appeal from the Judgment and Order of the Lahore High Court 28‑9‑1985 in W.P. No. 644‑R of 1976).

‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Writ jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Writ petition suffering from unexplained delay of 9 years‑‑Filing of civil suit on same subject‑matter and resultant compromise between parties, not mentioned in petition‑‑High Court's refusal to exercise powers of discretionary jurisdiction in such matter upheld‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 11th February, 1986.

‑This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 28‑9‑1985 passed in Writ Petition No. 644/R of 1976.

2. Leave is sought on the grounds whether the non‑mentioning of the civil suit and the resultant compromise in the writ petition is fatal to the writ when both the parties are pari delicto whether non‑application of mind to the facts of the case and the resultant erroneous observation that the writ suffers from unexplained delay and latches of almost nine years, taken from the date of the impugned allotment is fatal to the writ petition and whether the High Court has failed to exercise jurisdiction by not interfering in a void order.

3. Facts necessary for the decision of the petition are that one Karam Din deceased was occupancy tenant of the land in dispute measuring 75 Kanals situate in village Jassian, Tehsil and District Attock under Tola Ram Singh. The petitioners are successors of the said Karam Din; that in 1967 the land was allotted to one Mst. Rabia Bai and others. On the appeal of the petitioners, the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Campbellpur cancelled the allotment on the ground that the land in question was 'evacuee' land under Muslim Occupancy Tenants and was, therefore, not available for allotment under clause viii of para. 4 (a) of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme; that in 1971 the land was again allotted, this time to respondent No.1 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to the extent of 57 Kanals out of the total area. The appeal/revision of the petitioners was dismissed on 16‑7‑1975 on the ground that under the Repeal Ordinance, 1974, section 15, the Settlement Commissioner had no powers of revision.

4. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order, dated 16‑7‑1975 the petitioners filed writ petition in the High Court. Status quo was ordered to be maintained in the admitting order, dated 4‑5‑1976. On 9‑6‑1976 respondent No.1 filed application for vacation of stay on the ground that the petitioners bed secured the stay order by suppressing facts of civil suit, dated 1‑12‑1972 and the compromise decree in it, between the parties, dated 12‑9‑1975. On 21‑6‑1974 Karam Elahi deceased predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners, filed application under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land) Settlement Act, 1958 before the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) with powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner at Lahore which was held to be interminable vide order, dated 19‑2‑1978 and it was further ordered on 3-7-1980 that of the vide order, dated 19‑2‑1978 and it was further ordered on 3‑7-1980 proceedings in it will remain pending till the disposal of the aforesaid writ petition. The latter order, dated 3‑7‑1980 was challenged in the High Court in Writ Petition No. 693/R/1980 which is still pending.

5. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and would agree with the finding of the learned High Court Judge that the petition suffers from an unexplained delay and laches of almost nine years, taken from the date of the impugned allotment. The learned Judge has also observed that on 1‑12‑1973 the petitioners had filed a civil suit on the same subject‑matter which ended in a compromise between the parties to the effect that they will share the land in the manner stated in the compromise drawn up and filed in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Campbellpur and marked as Exh. C.l and when the learned counsel was confronted with this, he did not dispute the correctness of the compromise arrived at between the parties which also invested the petitioners‑ with some benefits. As no mention of this fact was made, therefore, the learned Judge refused to exercise powers of discretionary jurisdiction in the matter, and we think, rightly too. We find no merit in this petition which, is consequently, dismissed.

M. I. 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.