GHULAM MUHAMMAD Versus ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (L)/ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (G), MULTAN
This appeal concerns the cancellation of 70 Kanals of land previously confirmed in favor of Mst. Fatima, a sitting allottee, and the subsequent refusal of the High Court to grant relief to her legal representatives. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in declining to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction to restore the cancelled land, despite a finding that the predecessor-in-interest was a sitting allottee. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to dismiss the writ petition. The ratio decidendi rests on the principles of laches and the failure to implead necessary parties. The Supreme Court affirmed that where allotments made to third parties have remained unchallenged for years, and where the petitioners failed to implead necessary parties in a timely manner, the High Court is justified in refusing to exercise its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction allows for the denial of relief when inordinate delay and procedural defects, such as non-joinder of parties, undermine the merits of the claim, rendering the petition incompetent.
- Can a writ petition be dismissed on the ground of laches when necessary parties are impleaded after an inordinate delay?
- Is a writ petition maintainable when the allotment in dispute is joint and indivisible and all joint allottees have not been impleaded?
- Does the High Court have the discretion to refuse relief in a writ petition where the petitioner has failed to challenge the allotment of land to third parties for a significant period?
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to' consider whether the High Court was in error in not exercising the discretion in favour of the appellants who are the legal representatives of Mst.Fatima the sitting allottee of the estate from whose Khata 70 Kanals of confirmed land was cancelled in 1964 in the absence of any finding that she was not entitled to the final allotment or confirmation of the land in dispute.
2. Mst.Fatima, predecessor‑in‑interest of the appellants was confirmed 120 Kanals of land in lieu of her verified claim. It was subsequently reduced to 94 Kanals 8 Marlas pursuant to a general order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner. The allotment of land was challenged by one Ali Muhammad in appeal on the ground that she was not a sitting allottee of the estate but this appeal was dismissed and a revision filed against it was also dismissed. Thereafter, one Moosa also challenged the allotment of land made in favour of Mst.Fatima. His appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to examine the question as to whether she was the sitting allottee of the estate. On remand, a finding was given that she was a sitting allottee and notwithstanding this finding of fact 70 Kanals of confirmed land was cancelled from her name in 1964. After her demise, the appellants who are her legal representatives challenged the orders in appeal and revision but failed as these were dismissed. Finally, they challenged the orders in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through a writ petition but did not succeed.
3. We have examined the judgment of the High Court and we find that the principal reason for not granting to them the relief was that only an area of 24 Kanals in square No.17, Killas Nos.20,21 and 22, was confirmed and the rest of the area was cancelled from her name which was allotted to respondents 4 to 6 in 1963 and this allotment was not challenged by the heirs of Mst.Fatima which thus assumed finality. In this context, the High Court observed:
4. "It appears that the respondents who are sitting allottees of the estate, having been given the land in question some twelve years ago, would appear to be better entitled to retain it than the petitioner and the respondents Nos.7 to 10 who would have no more interest in the land than that of absentee landlords. Moreover, allotments made in favour of the respondents in 1963 have never‑been challenged by the petitioner and respondents Nos.7 to 10 at, any stage. There is another aspect of the case and that is that two sisters of Muhammad Sharif respondent No.6 have not as yet been impleaded as a party and they hold joint allotment with Muhammad Sharif respondent No.5. Allotment being joint and indivisible, no writ petition can be issued in respect of the land allotted to Muhammad Sharif. Further, the petitioner did not implead the personal heirs of Mst.Fatima either in appeal or revision or before this Court when he filed the writ petition in 1966. He filed an application in 1973 to implead them when an objection . was raised that the writ petition was incompetent for non‑impleading necessary parties. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that after such an inordinate delay of more than seven years, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches is well‑founded. In view of all the circumstances as stated above, it is not a case fit for exercising the Constitutional discretionary jurisdiction."
5. We consider that the reasons given by the High Court for withholding the relief are just and proper and no interference is Accordingly, the appeal is without any force and is hereby dismissed with costs.
6. M.B.A./G‑111/S Appeal dismissed.