HAKEEMUDDIN AND Others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER
This matter arises from a petition seeking special leave to appeal against the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 168-R of 1970 by the High Court, which had upheld the refusal of departmental authorities to interfere with land allotment proceedings. The core legal question concerns whether repetitive challenges and review applications are maintainable after the underlying dispute has already been conclusively determined and foreclosed by a previous judgment of the High Court in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that once litigation between the parties stands foreclosed by a prior High Court judgment, subsequent rounds of applications and writ petitions merely reiterating rejected pleas are incompetent and rightly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that re-agitating settled matters through successive collateral proceedings is an abuse of the judicial process and will not be entertained.
- Can a party maintain a review application or subsequent writ petition after their challenge to the same order has already been dismissed by the High Court?
- Whether repetitive litigation of settled land allotment disputes is permissible under the law?
- Does the High Court rightly decline to interfere with departmental orders when the underlying controversy is already foreclosed by a prior judgment?
- Section 10, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
- Section 11, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
- Section 20(3), Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-The dispute between the parties relates to allotment of land measuring 6 kanals in Khasra Nos. 1491/1-2 and 149/1. After series of litigation in the department, the dispute came up before the former High Court of West Pakistan in Writ Petition No. 532-R of 1963 filed by Hakeemuddin, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. The petition was dismissed with the result that the confirmation of land in favour of Lal Din respondent was upheld. After having been unsuccessful in the High Court, petitioners moved an application before the Rehabilitation Commis--sioner for the review of the order dated 3-7-1961 which had earlier been challenged by them in Writ Petition No. 352-R of 1963. Learned Rehabilitation Commissioner dismissed the review application by the order dated 12-9-1969 on the ground that the petitioners had earlier unsuccessfully challenged the same order in their second revision and also in the Writ Petition in the High Court, and, even otherwise, no ground for review was made out.
2. Petitioners did not rest at that, but again filed miscellaneous applications under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and also under section 20
(3) of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. After these proved to be futile they approached the High Court once again, in Writ Petition No. 168-R of 1970. The petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by the judgment dated 4-10-1.973 and -then filed this petition seeking special leave to appeal.
3. It would be seen from the facts narrated above that litigation between the parties was foreclosed by the judgment of the former High Court of West Pakistan in Writ Petition No. 352-R of 1963. The litigation that ensued thereafter at petitioner's instance was bare repetition of their pleas in support of their entitlement which had been rejected earlier, and on these facts, theHigh Court rightly declined to interfere with the orders sought to be challenged by the petitioners.
4. This petition has no meritand is dismissed in limine.