INAYATULLAH vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND Other
The matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of the petitioner's constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of a land allotment. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner could successfully challenge the land allotment cancellation after a prolonged delay and whether being a Jammu & Kashmir refugee grants any preferential right over another refugee. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit, affirming the High Court's findings that the cancellation order passed in 1957 remained unchallenged and that the petitioner could not validly claim preference over another Jammu & Kashmir refugee. The key principle laid down is that failure to challenge a cancellation order in a timely manner precludes subsequent legal recourse, and a refugee status identical to that of a contesting party confers no preferential claim without specific statutory backing.
- Can a party challenge an unchallenging land cancellation order after an inordinate delay?
- Does the status of a Jammu & Kashmir refugee confer a preferential right to land allotment over another refugee?
- Will a petition for special leave to appeal be maintained against a well-reasoned High Court judgment based on concurrent factual findings?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J -It is not necessary to go into the lengthy details of the stages through which this case passed and it will be sufficient for our purpose to mention that- the-petitioner claims the land in dispute as being a family member of his maternal-father (Muhammad Boota), to whom this land was allotted allegedly for his` ownself as well as for the petitioner. Having failed at the departmental level the petitioner ultimately filed a constitutional petition being W. P. 562- R/74 but without any success as it was dismissed by the High Court on 30-6-1979. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the aforesaid order to this Court.
2. We have heard the learned counsel at some length and also go through the paper book. The High Court has found that the allotment aforesaid was cancelled as far back as 2-2-1957 and as the petitioner never challenged that order, it was too late in the day to take exception to the same at such a late stage. Learned counsel submitted that in fact their was no such order dated 2-2- 1957, and in this context be was not called upon to challenge an order which according to high existed nowhere. This pie was attended by the High Court and was repelled with reference to the attending evidence and it was held that such an order was in fact passed and the failure of the petitioner to challenge it cannot be ignored due to the type of the excuse put forward by him.
Learned counsel then tried to argue that such a land could only be given to a Jammu & Kashmir refugee, and as such should have been given to him as be is a Jammu & Kashmir refugee. It was, however, conceded that the respondent is also a Jammu & Kashmir refugee and apart form the fact, that this point was not raised in the High Court in this form, even otherwise, it could not clothe the petitioner with an preference against the respondent. The order of the High Court in our opinion is well reasoned, well supported by the relevant record and the law applicable In these circumstances, the present petition has no merit and is dismissed hereby.