ABDUL AZIZ And Others vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition and an Intra-Court Appeal regarding the allotment of land. The petitioners, previously found to have received excess land allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, had their excess allotment cancelled. Despite previous litigation concluding against them, the petitioners initiated a new round of litigation challenging the subsequent allotment of that same land to a third party. They relied on the proviso to section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, claiming entitlement based on their possession of the land. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' claim was meritless, noting that the matter had already been justly concluded in previous litigation. The Court affirmed that the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, does not allow for the re-opening of past and closed transactions or concluded decisions. Consequently, the plea based on possession was legally unavailable to the petitioners, and the petition was dismissed.
- Does the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 allow for the re-opening of concluded litigation regarding land allotments?
- Can a party re-agitate a claim to land after the matter has been previously decided and concluded by the courts?
- Does possession of land grant a right to transfer under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975 if the underlying allotment dispute has already been settled?
- Section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
- Section 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
- Section 3, Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act 1975
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--The petitioners had been found in the result of proceedings under sections 10 and 11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, to have received allotment of land in excess of entitlement by 109 units. The additional Settlement Commissioner, however, by his order, dated 10-4-1969, allowed them to retain 21 units but cancelled the allotment of the land equivalent to 88 units. The petitioners challenged this cancellation through a civil suit right up to this Court but failed throughout. While dismissing their petition for leave to appeal, on 2-3-1977, this Court disapproved of any attempt on their part to re-agitate the matter on the Settlement side, holding that the litigation in the matter is "justly concluded".
2. Nevertheless, the petitioners again started a new round by challenging the allotment made earlier on 12-11-1976 in favour of respondent No. 5, of the excess land cancelled from their name.
Their writ petition and I.C.A. Having been dismissed, they have now filed this petition for leave to appeal. They base their claim under the proviso to section 3 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975) on the ground that they having been in possession of the land during the required period, they were entitled to its transfer in their favour. We find no force in the plea. Act XIV of 1975 had already been in existence when the earlier round had concluded.
There is also nothing in the Act to affect the efficacy of concluded decisions, which decisions being past and closed could not, therefore, be re-opened. A plea based on possession was no longer available in law to the petitioners. The petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.