KHAIR DIN Versus O.S.D. CENTRAL RECORD LAHORE
This matter arises from a civil petition for leave to appeal filed against the concurrent findings of the settlement authorities and the High Court, which was initially dismissed by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, upon an application filed by the petitioner for suo motu review, notice was issued to examine the validity of the authorities' grounds for rejecting the petitioner's claim regarding an entry in the register. The core legal question examined was whether the exercise of suo motu review powers was justified where the petitioner had abandoned his original stand. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner had subsequently applied to purchase the suit land from the settlement authorities and had surrendered his rights in favour of a third party through civil court proceedings, he could not be permitted to reassert his original claim. Consequently, the Court ruled that it was not a fit case for the exercise of suo motu power and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that a party who abandons their original claim and seeks alternative remedies cannot invoke the extraordinary suo motu jurisdiction of the Court to re-litigate the settled matter.
- Can a petitioner reassert an original claim through suo motu review after having abandoned it and sought alternative remedies before settlement authorities?
- Whether suo motu review powers can be exercised when the matter is concluded by concurrent findings of fact and subsequent surrender of rights?
1. SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J:- --This Court dismissed the civil petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner by the following order:-----
2. "This matter stands concluded by a finding of facts. Leave to appeal is refused."
3. On an application filed by the petitioner praying for suo motu review, the case was examined and it was noticed that petitioner Khair Din was non -suited by the authorities on the sole ground that the entry of his M.R. I Form in M.R-II Register at Serial No 846 was entered with a different ink and this entry was also not tick-marked by the verifying officer. MR-III issued in the name of petitioners was, accordingly, held to be not genuine. Since the above reasons given by the authorities for rejecting the claim of petitioner were not found sufficient the case was considered fit for suo motu review of the order dated 28-1-1996 accordingly notice was issued to respondents.
4. In response to the notice, the learned counsel for the Member Board of Revenue (MBR) has appeared and contested the Suo Motu Review proceedings. Besides contending that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Settlement authorities as well as by the High Court on the question, that the entry in the MR-I Register is not genuine the learned counsel for M.B.R. has placed before us a copy of the application filed by Khair Din before M.B.R. wherein he prayed that his application for purchase of the land earlier allotted to him which was cancelled, be decided at an early date as directed by the High Court in W.P. No 129-R of 1997 on 10-6-1997. The learned counsel for M.B.R: has also placed before us photo copies of the orders passed by the civil Court in' respect of the land which is subject of dispute. On the basis of these documents, the learned counsel for M.B.R. very vehemently contended that the petitioner, Khair Din, having himself abandoned his original stand for allotment of the land by applying to purchase the suit land from the Settlement authorities, he cannot be permitted to reassert his original claim of allotment now through suo motu proceedings. It is further contended that petitioner Khari Din further surrendered his right in the land in favour of Nawab Aslam Javed, who is the real person behind these proceedings. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for M.B.R. appear to be correct.
5. It appears that Khair Din having lost the case throughout made an application to Settlement authorities for purchase of the suit land. His application was, however, disposed of by the Settlement authorities, whereupon he filed writ petition before the High Court wherein his only prayer was that the Settlement authorities be directed to dispose of his application for purchase of the disputed land it is also clear from the copies for the orders passed by the civil Court in Civil Suit No. 145 of 1990 that Khair Din had agreed to the passing of a decree in respect of the suit land in favour of his nephew, Nawab Aslam Javed, who is real person behind these proceedings. In these circumstances, we are of the view that it is not a 6t case for exercise of suo motu power. The suo motu petition is, accordingly, dismissed and notice issued to the respondent is vacated.
6. H.B.T./K-45/S Petition dismissed.