MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR AND Other
This matter arises from a petition challenging the dismissal of successive writ petitions concerning the adjustment and cancellation of Produce Index Units under settlement laws. The core legal question is whether a second writ petition seeking the same relief on the basis of a subsequent report is maintainable after the dismissal of an earlier writ petition and review application on the same allegations, and whether it is barred by the principle of res judicata. The Supreme Court held that the second writ petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court as it was barred by the rule of res judicata and lacked merit. The key principle laid down is that a subsequent writ petition seeking identical relief based on grounds available or arising from the same controversy is barred by res judicata once an earlier petition and review challenging the core administrative order have been dismissed.
- Whether a second writ petition on the same allegations is barred by the rule of res judicata after the dismissal of an earlier writ petition?
- Does a subsequent report regarding entitlement constitute a fresh ground sufficient to overcome the bar of res judicata in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
- Section 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-According to the petitioners, out of a total number of 373 P. I. Units 299 P. 1.
2. Units were adjusted in Jhamb, District Sahiwal and the remaining 74 P. I. Units remained unadjusted. However, in accordance with the revised formula the number of P. I. Units was raised to 165 units which were transferred from District Sahiwal to District Bahawalnagar. It came to light that the number of P.
1. Units was surreptitiously increased to 366 which were subsequently cancelled by the Additional Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his powers under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. He was, however, allowed to retain 158 P. I. Units.
3. The petitioners challenged the cancellation of the Units through a Writ Petitton No. 722-R of 1973 which was dismissed in limine on 28th November, 1973. A review was sought on the ground that the report about the entitle- merit of the petitioners was awaited but the High Court dismissed it.
4. There- after, on the strength of the report dated 6th of February, 1974 of the Central Record Office, that it was willing to reverify their entitlement, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 751-R of 1974 to obtain a direction for the reverification of their entitlement which was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that on the same allegations the earlier writ petition and the review petition were dismissed and that it found no reason to entertain this writ petition for the same relief.
5. The learned counsel contends that the report constitutes a fresh ground to assail the order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner but we see no merit in it for the reasons given by the High Court.We would like to observe further that the second writ petition was hit by the rule of resjudicata and, therefore the conclusion of the High Court is unexceptionable.
6. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition which was dismissed.