Shaikh MUHAMMAD HAFIZ ULLAH vs GHULAM YASIN AND Other
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal directed against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging a departmental property division. The core legal questions involve whether the departmental authorities acted within their jurisdiction in dividing the premises between rival occupants based on possession, whether a limitation plea not raised before departmental authorities can be urged in writ jurisdiction, and whether unexplained delay constitutes laches barring relief. The Supreme Court held that the departmental authorities acted within their jurisdiction, that the limitation point could not be raised for the first time in the writ petition, and that the four-year delay in approaching the High Court amounted to fatal laches. The petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed. The key principles laid down are that departmental divisions of property based on possession within jurisdiction will not be interfered with, points not raised before lower forums cannot be agitated for the first time in writ proceedings, and substantial delay in invoking constitutional jurisdiction constitutes laches sufficient to deny relief.
- Can a plea of limitation not raised before the departmental authorities be taken for the first time in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Whether delay in filing a writ petition amounts to laches sufficient to deny relief?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an order of departmental authorities dividing property among occupants in accordance with their possession?
1. S. A. RAHMAN, J.-This petition was dismissed for non-pro--secution by order dated the 29th June 1967. Neither the Attorney nor the Counsel attended the Court that day. It has been explained by the Attorney, Mr. Abid Nawaz Abid, that : the case originally figured in the list of the Full Court issued for the 26th to 29th of June, 1967 and that only the 28th the Bench was changed and this petition was assigned for hearing to Bench of three Judges. Mr. Abid Nawaz says that he was under the impression that the case being laid down on the list was not likely to come up on the 28th, and when he came on the 29th, to enquire about its he was told at about 12.0(1 noon, that the petition had been dismissed.He applied the very next day for its restoration. After hearing his explanation, we order that the petition be restored and heard on: the merits. We have however, given him warning that he should, watch: the cases more vigilantly in future.
2. On the merits we find little-ground to interfere with the order passed by the High Court; dismissing the writ petition, filed by Sheikh Muhammad, Hafiz Ullah. The petitioner and the respon--dent were both occupants of a premises and they are both claimants. The department had divided the property between them in accordance with their possession. This order was well within the jurisdiction of the departmental authorities, and the High Court was right in upholding -it as valid.
3. 'Mr. Dilawar Mahmood was unable to suggest any solid reasons for interference with the order of the departmental authorities in that behalf.
4. The alternative stand adopted by Mr. Dilawar Mahmood was that the appeal of the respondent before, the Additional Settlement Commissioner from the order of the Deputy Settlement Commis- -sioner, was barred by time, and that there was nothing to show in the order of that officer that he had condoned the delay. The learned counsel, however, concedes that apparently this point had not been taken before any of the departmental authorities and it was too late in the day for such a point to be taken for the first time in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
5. There was also laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the High Court. The impugned order was passed in 1962 and the Writ Petition was filed only in 1966. This by itself was a sufficient, ground for denying relief to the-petitioner.
6. We see no force in this petition for special leave to appeal and dismiss the petition.
Cited by 5 cases
- Aziz-Ur-Rehman vs Member (J.V), Board Of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore etc 2021 PLJ Lahore 213
- Liaqat Ali Khan etc vs Chief Settlement Commissioner etc 2020 LHC 2031
- Liaqat Ali Khan and 10 others vs Chief Settlement Commissioner, Member 2021 YLR 349
- Mst. SARWAR MAI and anothers vs JUDGE FAMILY COURT, MUZAFFARGARH 2010 YLR 1234
- RAJ MUHAMMAD vs Ch. ABDUL MAJID and 5 others 1985 CLC 213