ASHIQ HUSSAIN vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER ETC.S
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court regarding an Urban Settlement dispute. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had standing to challenge the transfer of a room to the second respondent, given that the room was deemed an independent property and the petitioner was not in possession of it. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly dismissed the petition because the petitioner lacked locus standi, as the room was an independent unit and the petitioner had no claim to it. Furthermore, the Court refused to entertain arguments regarding the finality of an earlier 1966 order because the petitioner had failed to challenge the subsequent 1974 remand order, and the issue of the respondent's possession was not raised in the High Court. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot challenge the transfer of property in writ jurisdiction if they lack locus standi, and issues not raised before the High Court cannot be agitated for the first time in the Supreme Court.
- Does a party have locus standi to challenge the transfer of an independent property unit if they are not in possession of said property?
- Can a party raise an argument regarding the finality of an earlier order in the Supreme Court if they failed to challenge the subsequent remand order in the High Court?
- Is a party permitted to raise new arguments in the Supreme Court that were not presented before the High Court?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH.J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from order dated 14-2-1977 of the Lahore High Court whereby a constitutional petition arising out of an Urban Settlement case was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. In an earlier round of litigation, the second respondent's plea that his application for transfer of a room needed lawful disposal was accepted by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction and the case was remanded. A Settlement Commissioner transferred the room as an independent unit to the said respondent in 1976. The petitioner challenged this again in the High Court. After hearing the learned counsel to support of the writ petition the learned Judge observed that it was an admitted fact that the room in question was not in possession of the petitioner and that after its transfer to the respondent No. 2, it was an independent property, which could not at all be transferred to the petitioner. The writ petition could have been dismissed on this ground alone. However, other points raised from the petitioner's side were also dealt with.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has in support of this petition contended that the respondent No. 2 was in illegal possession of the room in question and that an earlier order passed against him on 7-12-1966. Having not been challenged by him attained finality, therefore, the case could not have been reopened. The High Court passed the remand order in the earlier round in 1974. The petitioner did not challenge that order. That being so, in question with regard to finality of the order passed in 1966 cannot raise now by the petitioner. Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that the source of possession of respondent No. 2 was not lawful, this question not having been raised in the High Court, we are not inclined t permit the same to be raised now. Nor the petitioner can derive any benefit in this behalf because if the room in question has been treated as an in depend dent entity the petitioner could not have agitated against its transfer in write jurisdiction of the High Court, as in that case, he would have had no locus standi to do so. That being so, this petition has no substance and is according dismissed.
Cited by 4 cases
- NOTICE TO POLICE CONSTBLE KHIZAR HAYAT SON OF HADAIT ULLAH Versus 2019 PLD 527
- Mst. NASEEBAN KHATOON Versus State 2014 YLR 899
- AZIZULLAH and another Versus THE STATE 2004 PCRLJ 1710
- MIR HASSAN and others. vs STATE and others 1999 SCMR 1418