GHULAM HUSSAIN AND Another vs NABI BAKHSH AND Other
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding an order of remand passed by the revenue authorities regarding the transfer of property under settlement laws. The core legal question concerns the propriety of interfering with a long-standing order of remand directed at determining afresh the eligibility of occupants for property transfer. The Supreme Court held that interference with an order of remand passed nearly a decade prior is unwarranted, particularly when the remand merely seeks a closer examination of eligibility and the petitioners failed to demonstrate that effect had not already been given to the remand directions. The key principle laid down is that the apex court will decline to grant leave to appeal against interlocutory remand orders of considerable antiquity where no prejudice or final injustice is demonstrated.
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with an order of remand passed several years prior when its purpose is merely to re-examine the eligibility of occupants?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against a remand order when the petitioner fails to show whether the remand has already been executed?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This order will govern C. P. S. L. A. No. 769 and C. P. S. L. A. No. 770, as both of them have been dismissed by a common judgment dated 27-5-1975 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, while disposing of Writ Petition No. 993-R of 1971 and Writ Petition No. 994-R of 1971.
2. The learned Judge in the High Court has vide his judgment passed on 27-5-1975, upheld the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 14-5-1971 which was not interfered with by the Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 29-10-1975 whereby the case was remitted to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for determining afresh the eligibility of the occupants to the transfer of the property in dispute. At the same time, some further directions and guidance was given as to how the Deputy Settlement Commis--sioner should proceed in the matter. The aforementioned judgment is now sought to be challenged by these two petitions for leave to appeal.
3. Obviously, it is too late in the day to interfere with the order of remand passed nearly ten years ago, especially when the effect of it is merely to secure closer examination of the eligibility of the occupants seeking transfer of the property. The learned counsel was, moreover, also unable to let us know as to whether the order of remand has not already been given effect to and some fresh orders not passed in the light of the aforesaid order.
4. These petitions are, therefore, clearly not fit ones wherein leave to appeal can be granted and they are dismissed accordingly.