REHMAT KHAN vs Mst. SARDAR BIBI AND Other
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a review petition seeking reconsideration of an earlier order dated 24-2-1981, which had dismissed a civil petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of property. The core legal question addressed is whether a petitioner possesses the locus standi to challenge the transfer of portions of a property that were not in his occupation, and whether grounds for review are made out when points raised have already been considered at the initial hearing. The Court held that the property in question had been validly divided into nine units and transferred to respective occupants, and that the petitioner lacked locus standi to question the transfer of units he did not occupy. The key principle laid down is that a party cannot maintain a challenge regarding property units outside their occupation, and a review petition cannot be used to re-argue points already addressed and adjudicated upon by the Court.
- Does a petitioner have the locus standi to question the transfer of property units that were not in his occupation?
- Can a review petition be entertained to re-argue points that were already advanced and attended to at the hearing of the civil petition?
- Under what circumstances can portions of a property be transferred to respondents under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- Settlement Scheme No. VIII
ORDER
M. S. H. QURESHI, J.-This is a petition seeking review of this Court's order dated .24-2-1981, whereby the petitioner's Civil Petition for grant of leave (No. 925 of .1975) had been dismissed. It is urged that the various portion of the property could not be transferred to the respondents as all of them had not filed form initially and that their forms filed under Settle--ment Scheme No. VIII could not be entertained during the pendency of the litigation, nor could the said portions of the property be said to have become "available" for the purposes of that' Scheme while the dispute was on.
2. We are not satisfied that the petitioner has any case for review. The property had in the course of the litigation been divided into nine units and each unit had been transferred to its respective occupant. The petition had, therefore, no locus stands to question the transfer of units which had not been in his occupation. The points now raised had been advanced all the hearing of the Civil Petition and attended to by the Bench. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed.