MUHAMMAD AJMAL and others vs KHALIL AHMAD and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petition regarding the transfer of evacuee property. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners could challenge the concurrent findings of fact regarding the construction of the disputed property after having accepted the terms of an earlier remand order. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners were bound by the earlier remand order which they failed to challenge, and having accepted its terms, they were estopped from challenging the subsequent concurrent findings of fact against them by the Settlement authorities and the High Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave refused.
- Whether a party is estopped from challenging subsequent orders passed pursuant to a remand order whose terms they previously accepted?
- Do concurrent findings of fact by lower authorities regarding property construction warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
- Can a petitioner challenge an order on a property transfer after failing to contest the initial remand order that governed the proceedings?
ORDER
TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- Against the order dated 23-12-1985 passed by the Administrator R.P. Gujranwala in favour of respondent-applicants qua the property subject-matter of this petition, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the Additional Commissioner (Rehabilitation) which was allowed vide the order dated 22-9-1986 and the said property was allotted in petitioners' name. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No,22/R of 1987 by the respondents which was disposed of on 30-8-1995 and the case was remanded to the Administrator for afresh order with the observation that, "if the Administrator comes to the conclusion that the property which the petitioners are occupying had not been constructed by them but by the evacuees their applications for the transfer shall stand dismissed." The matter was taken up by the Settlement Commissioner and vide his order dated 4-12-1999 maintained the transfer of the property in favour of the respondents. This order was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No,113/R of 2000 which was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court vide the impugned order dated 8-11-2000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave on the ground that the property stood rightly allotted to the petitioners; that the learned High Court fell in error in ignoring that the property was no longer available for allotment and respondents-applicants could not lay any claim on the same.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their assistance.
4. Petitioners did not challenge the order dated 22-9-1986 passed by the learned High Court on the constitution petition filed by the respondents in terms of which the case was remanded to the Settlement authorities for afresh decision with the observation that, "if the construction on the disputed property had not been made by them but by the evacuee owners then their applications for transfer of the property shall stand dismissed." It was pursuant to the said remand order that the Settlement Commissioner maintained the transfer order made in favour of the respondents and which has been concurred by the learned Division Bench vide the impugned order. There are concurrent findings of fact to the effect that it was the respondents who had made construction and not the evacuees. That being so, the impugned judgment is unexceptionable. Even otherwise, having accepted the terms of the qualified order dated 30-8-1995 (in Writ Petition No,22/R of 1987 filed by the respondents), the petitioner are estopped to challenge the orders passed pursuant thereto.
5. For what has been discussed above, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave refused.