SHAH MUHAMMAD vs SHAUKAT ALI
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the allotment of land in Chak No. 53/4-R, Bahawalpur. The petitioner originally sought to adjust his rural land claim against urban land allotted to him, which was rejected because the land fell within municipal limits. Following the failure of his initial challenges through appeal, revision, and a writ petition, the petitioner initiated a second round of litigation by acting as an informer, alleging that the respondent held excess land. Settlement authorities dismissed this claim, noting the petitioner had already exhausted his legal remedies and that the land in question had been correctly confirmed in the respondent's name based on a mutation of inheritance regarding deceased brothers. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's contention regarding the adjustment of his claim was no longer open to him, as he had exhausted all legal remedies. Furthermore, the Court found no merit in the allegation of excess land holding, affirming that the property was rightly allotted to the respondents based on inheritance.
- Can a petitioner re-litigate a claim for land adjustment after exhausting all appellate and writ remedies?
- Is an allotment of land based on a mutation of inheritance valid when the original claimant has failed to prove excess land holding by the allottee?
- Does a settlement authority have the power to confirm land in favour of a respondent based on inheritance mutation after previous litigation has concluded?
- Paragraph 24, Settlement Scheme
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The dispute between the parties is in respect of land in Chak No. 53/4-R in Fort Abbas, Tehsil and District Bahawalpur.
2. The land was allotted to the petitioner. It was, however, included in the limit of Haroonabad Municipal Committee and could not therefore, be confirmed under the Scheme as he held claim for rural and not urban land. He alongwith some other persons made representation to the Rehabilitation Commissioner for getting their verified claim for rural area adjusted against their allotment of urban land in this aforesaid Chak. This application was rejected and the area under his temporary allotment was allotted and confirmed in favour of Shaukat A.I, respondent No. 1 on 7- 4-60. He challenged this order in appeal and revision but the same was dismissed. The petitioner challenged this Order in Writ Petition No. 1164/R of 1965 which was also dismissed on 9-11-66.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner started second round of litigation by making an application as an informer against respondent No. 1. He complained to the settlement authorities that respondent No. 1's claim is only to the extent of 35 kanals and he was holding land in excess. This application was also dismissed on the ground that he had already lost up to the stage of Letter Patent Appeal in previous litigation. It was further observed that later on mutation of inheritance had been sanctioned in favour of petitioner and his brothers Abdul Rahman as their two brothers Waris and Kalu had died before partition. On this basis the entire area was confirmed in the name of Shaukat and Abdul Rahman. The petitioner challenged this order in appeal before the Settlement Commissioner, Bahawalpur and the case was remanded on the ground that the Additional Settlement Commissioner could not have reviewed his case. The matter was again considered and the claim of the respondent was found to be correct in view of the mutation of inheritance. The petitioner challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 378/R/1 which was dismissed on 16-4-75. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order.
4. Mr. Naazar Khan the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that under para. 24 of the Settlement Scheme the petitioner was entitled to get his temporary claim adjusted against urban area. This contention is no longer open to him. The petitioner had exhausted all his remedies on this basis and has failed to succeed in his efforts.
5. After hearing the learned counsel we are satisfied that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have been rightly given the property to dispute in lieu of their claim inherited from their two brothers Waris and Kaka who died before partition. The contention of the learned counsel that respondent No. 1 was holding land in excess of his claim is without any foundation and cannot be accepted. The petition has no force and it is dismissed.