1989 SCMR 2053

SARTAJ INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1989 SCMR 2053

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Civil Petition No.1009 of 1982

Date1988-11-20

Judge(s)Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash

Authored bySaad Saood Jan

ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

1. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑ By a letter dated 1‑9‑1960 an industrial concern called as the Laj Industries, Shura Kothi, Gandhi Park, Lahore, was transferred to the petitioner. A dispute arose with regard to the question whether the transfer made in favour of the petitioner included transfer of the Karkhana Shora. The then Chief Settlement Commissioner, Mr.M.A.Haq, visited the spot on 18‑6‑1970 in presence of the parties and their counsel and went around the entire area. By an order dated 14‑11‑1971 he inter alia held that the Karkhana Shora measuring 55 Kanals 7 marlas and 193 square feet or supplementary khasra No.11769/413 was not transferred to the petitioner and that it was not entitled to the transfer of this industrial concern which was one different from that sought by petitioner and further that the Karkhana Shora was to be disposed of according to law. The petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No.1125‑R‑1975 in the High Court on 17‑10‑1975 to challenge the legality of the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. It was dismissed on 20‑10‑1975 in limine on the ground that the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was based on findings of fact which could not be challenged, even if erroneous, in Constitutional jurisdiction; that the petitioner had got what he had applied for and that in any event the writ petition suffered from laches.

2. The petitioner did not challenge the order of the learned Single Judge in further proceedings. On the other hand, on 25‑5‑1982, he filed another writ petition in the High Court in which the basic attack was again directed against the order dated 14‑11‑1971 of the Chief Settlement Commissioner. It was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. The petitioner preferred an intra‑Court appeal which met with no success. It now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.

2. This petition is clearly misconceived. After the petitioner's first writ petition against the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner was dismissed by the High Court, no second writ petition after a lapse of more than 6 years challenging the same order could be entertained.

3. Leave is refused.

4. M.A.K./S‑413/S Petition dismissed.