NIAZ ALI and other vs SULTAN ALI and other
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of Intra-Court Appeals by the High Court. The petitioners had originally filed mukhbari applications against the respondents regarding land claims in Village Zafarwal, which were dismissed by the relevant Settlement authorities. Aggrieved by these decisions, the petitioners sought relief through writ petitions in the High Court, which were subsequently dismissed by a learned Single Judge. Further appeals filed by the petitioners in the form of Intra-Court Appeals were also dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court examined the arguments presented by the petitioners' counsel. The Court observed that the petitioners' mukhbari applications had been consistently rejected by the Settlement authorities and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any valid grounds for the High Court to have decided otherwise. Finding no merit in the petitions or any justification for interference with the impugned judgment of the High Court, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal in both petitions.
- Does the dismissal of a mukhbari application by Settlement authorities provide sufficient grounds for Supreme Court interference after concurrent findings by the High Court?
- Is leave to appeal warranted when a petitioner fails to establish any legal error in the impugned judgment of the High Court?
ORDER
' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- This order will dispose of two petitions namely (i) C.P.S.L.A. No,225/80 filed by Niaz Ali and another, (ii) C.P.S.L.A. No,412/80 filed by Riaz Ali and another, against the dismissal by the High Court, of their I.C.As. (No,161/79 and 160/79) respectively, the main judgment having been recorded in I.C.A. No,160/79 on 6-11-1979.
2. The facts giving rise to these petitions are, briefly, that they filed mukhbari applications against Sultan All respondent No,1 (in C.P. No,225/80) and Sardar respondent No,1 (in C.P. No,412/80) in Village Zafarwal against their claims. The said mukhbari applications were, however, dismissed.
Feeling aggrieved the petitioners challenged the orders of dismissal through writ petitions in the High Court but these were also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court by the same order, dated 24-4-1979. They then filed two separate I.C.As which too, were dismissed by a Division Bench of the said High Court vide the impugned judgment.
' Hence the present petitions.
3. We have heard the petitioners' counsel at some length. We notice that petitioner's mukhbari applications in these cases were not only rejected by the Settlement authorities but they did not succeed before the High Court either. Even before us the learned counsel has not been able to make out any good ground for interference with the impugned judgment. Leave is, therefore, refused in both the petitions.