HASHIR AHMAD vs KAMALUDDIN ETC.S
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a land settlement dispute. The petitioner, an informer (Mukhbir), challenged the settlement of land in favor of respondent No. 2, arguing that the land was urban and could not be settled against a rural claim. While the petitioner's application initially succeeded, the High Court overturned this decision in its revisional jurisdiction. The petitioner contended that the High Court erred in its factual findings regarding an earlier 1963 cancellation order and argued that the second Mukhbari application should not have been set aside. The Supreme Court examined the record and found no justification to doubt the High Court's factual determination that the 1963 order had been set aside in 1968. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner's second Mukhbari application was barred by the principle of res judicata given the peculiar circumstances of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the High Court's revisional interference was legally justified and that the petitioner's claim was unsustainable.
- Does the principle of res judicata apply to successive Mukhbari applications regarding the same land settlement?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court's factual finding regarding the status of a prior administrative order?
- Is a second Mukhbari application maintainable when a previous cancellation order regarding the same land has already been adjudicated?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 22-11-1980 of the Lahore High Court whereby a settlement revision arising out of a land settlement case which was filed by the respondent No. 2 was allowed. The petitioner was an informer with regard to the land settled (though according to the petitioner only proposed and verified) in favour of respondent No. 2 against verified rural clam. The Mukhbari application succeeded mainly on the ground that the settlement was illegal, because it was against rural claim of urban land. The respondents' challenge in the High Court against the cancellation was allowed in its revisional jurisdiction on the land settlement side. The petitioner (the informer) has now sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
2. Learned counsel has pointed out that there was an earlier Mukhbari application by a different person which was allowed in 1963 (the petitioner's application was made in 1968). And, because the order of cancellation passed in 1963 was never challenged by the respondents, it attained finality, therefore, the High Court should not have allowed the respondents' revision petition. We notice that the High Court .In the impugned judgment considered the effect of the order passed in 1963 and found that the same having been set aside by a Settlement Commissioner on 27-4-1968, the argument was not available to the present petitioner.
3. Learned counsel in this behalf has contended that the High Court misrea the record in coming to the conclusion that the order of cancellation o 4-7-1963 was set aside on 27-4-1968. After hearing the learned counsel o this aspect of the matter, we do not feel inclined to doubt the correct of the statement of fact made in the impugned order nor there is any justifyaction for this Court now to hold an enquiry in this behalf.
4. Learned counsel then contended that the order passed on the second Mukhbari application filed by the petitioner was not liable to be set aside b the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction, because it did not suffer fro any illegality or impropriety. We do not agree with the learned counsel. Apart from the very valid consideration which weighed with the learn Judges in the High Court, we are of the view that the proceedings on the second Mukhbari application filed by the petitioner would, in the peculia circumstances of this case, be hit by the bar of general result judicator. On either view, there is no force in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.