NIAMAT ALI Versus DEWAN JIRAM DAS

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULI,AH, J. ‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought in these three petitions by the plaintiffs' side against the dismissal of their writ petitions by the High Court.

2. The dispute relates to the allotment of land resumed under Land Reforms Regulation. An order adverse to the petitioners was passed on 26‑11 1978. According to the learned counsel, it was challenged before the higher Land Reforms authorities, but without any success. The petitioners then filed a civil suit but that too met the same fate upto the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction. They then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Their writ petitions having been dismissed, they have now sought leave to appeal.

3. Although the question raised before the High Court regarding jurisdiction of the Land Reforms authorities has properly been dealt with in the impugned judgment, this petition merits to be dismissed on another ground as well.

4. The learned counsel admitted that the basic order of which the petitioners were aggrieved, was the one passed on 26‑11‑1978. The High Court, in its civil revisional jurisdiction, had in the earlier round refused to set it aside. In other words, when challenging the same order in writ jurisdiction of the High Court in the second round, the petitioners could not have succeeded unless the revisional order of the High Court was set aside. This was not possible because a writ could not be issued under Article 199 of the Constitution so as to annul an order or the effect of an order passed by the High Court itself. When faced with this situation, the learned counsel could not press these petitions any further.

5. They are, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.

6. M.I./M‑565/S Petition dismissed.