MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus SAEEDA BEGUM
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition concerning the transfer of property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioner, a local who had filed an LH transfer form that was rejected in 1959, challenged the auction and subsequent issuance of a P.T.D. in favour of the respondents after nearly two decades of delay. The core legal question involves the effect of inordinate delay, laches, and the conduct of a party seeking discretionary constitutional remedies. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal to exercise discretion was unexceptionable, as the petitioner was guilty of sheer negligence, laches, and estoppel by sleeping over the matter for long periods while valuable rights accrued to the respondents. The key principle laid down is that discretionary relief under constitutional jurisdiction will be refused to a party whose prolonged inaction and lack of diligence amount to laches and estoppel.
- Whether a petitioner is entitled to constitutional relief when guilty of prolonged delay and laches in challenging a property transfer?
- Does failure to pursue a settlement form over nearly two decades attract the bar of estoppel and laches?
- Is the High Court justified in dismissing a writ petition in limine on the ground of sheer negligence and indifference?
- Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑This petition for leave to appeal calls in question the order dated 12th June, 1979 passed by the Lahore High Court, dismissing a writ petition, wherein the question of transfer of a property under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was raised.
2. The petitioner is a local. He filed an L H transfer form which was rejected by an Assistant Settlement Commissioner on 13th December, 1959. The property was auctioned in favour of respondent No. 1 who surrendered it to respondent No. 2, is whose favour a P. T. D. was issued in 1971.
3. The petitioner's case was that despite his efforts in this behalf, no information was given to him about the processing on his form, nor was he made aware of proceedings in favour of the respondents: He submitted several applications in this behalf to the concerned authority but without any success. Ultimately, he filed the writ petition in June 1979 which was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge on ground mainly of "sheer negligence and indifference" on the part of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel states that the first application by the petitioner to seek information/relief, after the submission of LH form in 1959, was made on 4th June 1964 and that till October 1969 he moved some more applications. Then after lapse of nearly seven years petitioner moved another application in 1976. In the meanwhile P. T. D. was issued to respondent No. 2 in 1972.
5. After hearing the learned counsel, on the question of the conduct o the petitioner, we are of the view that in the circumstances of this case, the petitioner would not b: entitled to any relief on account of both laches and estoppel. He slept over the matter for long periods of time, during which the respondents obtained valuable rights and interest in the property. This case is covered by the rule laid down by this Court in Abdul Majid Shaida v. Mst. Noor Jehan and another (P L D 1967 S C 221) as affirmed in Civil Review Peti tion No. K‑3 of 1967. Th.‑ assertion of the petitioner that in fact he remained unaware of the proceedings of the Settlement authorities for nearly two decades is also without the support of circumstances, nor is it logical. Refusal of the High Court to exercise discretion in his favour is unexceptionable. This petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
6. Petition dismissed.