Mst. SULTANA BEGUM And Another vs The ADDITIONAL DEPUTY
This matter concerns a dispute over the confirmation of land allotment and the subsequent exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction by the High Court. The core legal questions involve the effect of a previous Supreme Court judgment on the parties' respective claims, the validity of an allotment confirmation in the absence of proper notice, and whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction in granting relief to the writ petitioners. Specifically, the Court examines whether an allotment, even if procedurally questionable, could be deemed void or illegal, and whether the writ petitioners possessed the necessary locus standi to seek relief. Furthermore, the Court addresses whether the petitioner, Mst. Sultana Begum, was entitled to similar relief based on constructive possession and the application of the prior Supreme Court precedent. The Court grants leave to appeal, imposing restrictions on the alienation or alteration of the property in dispute and requiring security for mesne profits, thereby preserving the status quo pending final adjudication of these complex questions of allotment validity and discretionary relief.
- What is the effect of a previous Supreme Court judgment on the respective pleas of contesting parties regarding land allotment?
- Can an allotment confirmation be treated as void or illegal solely on the ground of lack of notice to an opposing party whose claim is based on a bogus allotment?
- Does a party have the locus standi to file a Constitutional petition if their own claim is based on a bogus allotment?
- Whether a party is entitled to relief based on constructive possession in light of a prior Supreme Court judgment?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--After hearing all the learned counsel we consider it a fit case to examine inter alias-- What is the effect of the previous Supreme Court judgment on the respective pleas of the contesting parties: Assuming, as the High Court did that notwithstanding the doubts about the orders of confirmation of allotment in favour of Mst. Sultana Begum petitioner the proposal could be deemed to have been confirmed in due course, whether it could be treated as void, invalid or in any way illegal on any ground including lack of notice to the other party, whose claim was based on allotment which was in fact bogus: Whether the writ petitioner in the High Court had the locus standi to file Constitutional petition and whether the High Court should, in its discretionary jurisdiction have allowed relief to the writ petitioners.
2. Whether Mst. Sultana Begum could not be treated as in possession constructive or otherwise for purpose of the same relief which the High Court allowed to the other party; and Whether the latter were not entitled to the same on the basis of the Supreme Court judgment.
3. Order accordingly.
4. Security Re. 2,500 each.
2. No alienation of the property in dispute nor any change in its character or status. Security by persons in possession for. Mesne profits from date of High Court judgment to the satisfaction of local Tehsildar.