AMIR ALI And Others vs Mst. ANJUM SEHRA And Other
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 29-7-1980, which dismissed a constitutional writ petition arising out of a land settlement case. The core legal question revolves around whether a party can challenge the cancellation of a land allotment after previously admitting before the Settlement Authorities that the allotment was obtained without his knowledge and based on misrepresentation. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner is bound by his own admission and cannot subsequently escape its legal consequences. The court affirmed the High Court's decision and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that a litigant cannot approbate and reprobate by disclaiming an allotment before administrative authorities and later challenging its cancellation in writ proceedings.
- Can a petitioner challenge the cancellation of a land allotment after having categorically admitted before the Settlement Authorities that the allotment was obtained without his knowledge and through misrepresentation?
- Is a party bound by admissions made before administrative authorities during land settlement proceedings?
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 29-7-1980 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a writ petition arising out of a land settlement case, was dismissed.
2. The land was allotted in the name of the petitioners in village Sambli as also in another village Wadala Bechi Ragh. Complaints having been received against the petitioner in respect of the allotment made in his, name, he appeared before the Settlement Authorities and categorically stated that the allotment made in village Wadala was without his knowledge and was based on misrepresentation and thus was liable to be cancelled. Accordingly the said land was cancelled.
Despite his earlier stand disclaiming the allotment in village Wadala he challenged the cancellation thereof in the Lahore High Court through a Constitutional petition and the same having been dismissed; he has now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel has vehemently contended that the petitioner never made any statement which was attributed to him. As is noted above similar plea were raised before the High Court but the same was not accepted.
4. We after hearing the learned counsel at some length in this behalf agree with the judgment of the High Court that the petitioner cannot escape the consequences of his own admission. That being so this petition is dismissed.