Mst. KUBRA BIBI AND Another vs ABDUL HAQ AND 7 Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the inheritance of Butey Khan and the subsequent allotment of land. The petitioners, who were not parties to a previous Supreme Court order directing the Rehabilitation Authorities to determine the legitimate heirs, challenged the Chief Settlement Commissioner's jurisdiction to reopen and cancel their allotment. The core legal question was whether a party who actively participates in proceedings before an administrative authority without objecting to its jurisdiction can subsequently challenge the authority's decision on jurisdictional grounds. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that because the petitioners had fully participated and acquiesced in the proceedings before the Settlement authorities, they were precluded from raising jurisdictional objections after an adverse decision. The Court reiterated the established principle of acquiescence and waiver in jurisdictional matters, ruling that a party cannot challenge the jurisdiction of a forum after taking a chance on a favorable outcome.
- Can a party who fully participates in proceedings before an administrative authority without objection later challenge the authority's jurisdiction after an adverse decision is rendered?
- Does the principle of acquiescence prevent a party from disputing the binding nature of a court order to which they were not originally a party if they subsequently litigated the merits of the issue before the relevant authority?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is connected with Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 623 of 1977, and the petitioners herein are respondents 10 and 11 in the said petition. This petition has accordingly been heard along therewith.
2. The entire background and the questions falling for determination have been discussed in the order disposing of Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 623 of 1977 and need not, therefore, be repeated here.
3. The only additional submission in this petition is that the allotment made in favour of the petitioners herein was reopened by the learned Chief' Settlement Commissioner in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 31-7-1975, passed in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 326 of 1975, to which the petitioners were not a party. Consequently, the said order was not binding of the petitioners and the Chief Settlement Commissioner could not have cancelled the allotment of the petitioners in pursuance thereof.
4. The order of the Supreme Court shows that it was observed therein that there were two sets of claimants in respect of the inheritance of Butey Khan namely, Ghulam 1duhammad, etc., predecessor-in-interests of the petitioners herein, and Gamun Khan (predecessor-in-interest of respondents 1 to 6), and it was observed that it would be necessary for the Rehabilitation Authorities to determine as to which of the two sets claiming to be legal heirs of Butey Khan had a legitimate right to inherit his property. Consequently, when Allah Yar informant (respondent No. 7 herein) moved the Chief Settlement Commis--sioner to determine this mater, he impleaded both sets of claimants. Both sides appeared before the Settlement authorities and fully agitated their respective contentions and no objection was raised by the petitioners herein against the jurisdiction of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to hear the matter and they acquiesced therein.
5. It was only after their claim was rejected that the petitioners raised the present objection. In these circumstances, the objection raised in this score before us cannot be given any weight. Reference in this behalf may be made to this Court's judgment in Ghulam Mohi-ud- Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (PLD19.64SC829), which bas been reiterated, after noticing the previous judgments of this Court on the subject is Ghulam Fatima v. Muhammad Hussain (PLD1976SC729). This petition accordingly must fail and is dismissed hereby.
Cited by 4 cases
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, GOJRA through Administrator vs Mst. TASNEEM 2000 PLC 81
- I.S.G.A. Ltd. vs Mrs. RIFT FAKHIR 1985 CLC 364
- KHUDHA BAKHSH vs A.C. and others 1995 CLC 788
- MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE GOJRA Through Its Administrator vs Mst. TASNEEM K.L.R. 2001 Labour & Service Cases 61