MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SADIQ AND Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition as infructuous. The petitioner, a claimant displaced person, had been allotted land following a 'mukhbari' application against a third party. Subsequently, the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelled this allotment upon determining the original allotment to the third party was valid. The petitioner challenged this cancellation in the High Court. While an earlier writ petition had remanded the matter, the Settlement Commissioner maintained the cancellation order. The petitioner filed a subsequent writ petition challenging the same order, which the High Court dismissed as infructuous because the impugned order had already been quashed in separate proceedings. The Supreme Court addressed whether a writ petition remains maintainable when the impugned order has already been quashed in other proceedings. The Court held that once an order is quashed, it ceases to exist, rendering any challenge to it infructuous. The Court affirmed the High Court's decision, noting that the petitioner could not challenge an order that was no longer legally alive, and further found no merit in the petition.
- Can a writ petition be maintained against an order that has already been quashed in separate proceedings?
- Does an order that has been quashed by a court remain subject to further challenge in a subsequent writ petition?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHEIKH, J.--The facts of this case briefly stated are that the petitioner Muhammad 'Khan who is a claimant displaced person was allotted 38 Killas of land in village Khiali Shahpur, but certain P. 1 Units verified in his favour remained unsatisfied due to non-availability of land.
2. According to the petitioner, he and certain other persons filed 'mukhbari' application alleging that Ali Hassan respondent 3 had fraudulently obtained allotment of certain land, and as a result, out of the area cancelled from the allotment of Ali Hassan, land equipment to 899 and 59 P. I Units was allotted to him, respectively on Khatas Nos. 53 and 54 of Register R. L. 2 of Village Thatta Chawan.
3. Latter on, however, the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) held that the original allotment in favour of Ali Hassan was valid, and he, accordingly, by the order dated 20th March, 1977 cancelled the allotment of the land issued in petitioner's favour.
4. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 874 of 1967 in the former High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore which was accepted on 23rd May, 1968 on the technical ground with the result that the case was remanded to the Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision.
5. On remand learned Settlement Commissioner maintained the previous order by which petitioner's allotment was cancelled, and this led the petitioner to approach the High Court again, in Writ Petition No. 67-R of 1973 filed by the petitioner was "liable to be dismissed as infructuous since the order against which it had been filed had already been quashed in Writ Petition No. 875-R of 1967".
6. Rana Abdur Rahim Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner does not challenge the correctness of the fact that the order challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 67-R of 1973 was the same as the on challenged in the earlier Writ Petition No. 875-R of 1967. Since the impugned order has been quashed by the High Court, even if that was at the instance of someone else, it was no longer alive so as to be set aside again. No exception can, therefore, be taken with the view that has prevailed with the learned Single Judge in the High Court. Even otherwise on merits of the case, the learned Single Judge in the High Court rightly refused to interfere with the orders passed in the case.
7. The petition is therefore dismissed in limine.