Mirza ABDUL Azizthrough His Legal Heirs vs Shahzadi TAJ BAKHT And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 2-7-1979, which dismissed a constitutional petition concerning a land settlement dispute between displaced persons holding unsatisfied produce index units. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to land allotted against the respondents' units and whether the Settlement Commissioner was justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit, upholding the High Court's findings that the appeal was competently dismissed as time-barred due to knowledge of the allotment order and that both parties stood in an equal capacity as sitting allottees on merits. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact regarding limitation and the equal standing of sitting allottees, supported by cogent reasons and unrefuted by documentary evidence, will not be interfered with in constitutional or appellate jurisdiction.
- Whether an appeal treated as time-barred by a Settlement Commissioner can be interfered with when the appellant had knowledge of the impugned allotment order?
- Whether sitting allottees holding unsatisfied produce index units stand in an equal capacity on merits regarding disputed land allotments?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 2-7-1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of a land settlement case, was dismissed.
2. The contesting parties were at the relevant the admittedly displaced persons holding unsatisfied P.I. Units and agricultural land could be allotted against the unsatisfied units. The petitioner although was able to get the majority of his P.I. Units satisfied, sought also the land which had been allotted against P.I. Units of the respondents. A learned Single Judge in the High Court dismissed the Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner on to grounds: One, that the order of the Settlement Commissioner treating the appeal filed by the petitioner as the-barred is unexceptionable; and, to, that on evidence both the parties stood in the same capacity, that is, sitting allottees.
3. The petitioners' explanation with regard to the the-barred appeal is that he had no knowledge of the order of allotment, which was impugned in the appeal. The Settlement Commissioner gave cogent reasons, which were accepted as valid by the High Court for holding otherwise.
4. We asked the learned counsel to satisfy us regarding the observation that on merits both the parties had almost equal case, was not correct. But he failed to make any reference to any document to show otherwise. This petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.