MUHAMMAD SIDDIQI vs Sh. IQBAL BAKHSH And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's claim regarding the transfer of a property. The petitioner sought the transfer of a portion of property he occupied, alleging it had not been auctioned, under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's claim for the transfer of the remaining portion of the property was maintainable in light of previous litigation regarding the same property. The Supreme Court examined the record and the High Court's findings, noting that a prior judgment of the Supreme Court had already conclusively determined the issues of transfer, auction, and the petitioner's eligibility. Consequently, the Court held that the High Court correctly applied the principle of res judicata or finality of litigation, as the matter had been previously adjudicated. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the petitioner could not re-litigate issues already settled by the apex court.
- Can a petitioner re-litigate the transfer and auction eligibility of a property after a final decision by the Supreme Court?
- Is a claim for the transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No. VIII maintainable if the underlying issues of eligibility and auction have been previously decided by the Court?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--Petitioner's claim to the transfer of the property in dispute came up before this Court in the first round of litigation in the case reported as Muhammad Siddique v.
2. Settlement Commissioner etc. SCMR 87. According to the impugned judgment of the High Court, petitioner did not lose heart and filed an application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that the entire portion in his possession had not been auctioned, and that the left out portion be transferred in his favour under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. This claim was examined and rejected by the Settlement Authorities and also by Lahore High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction. Petitioner now seeks leave to appeal.
3. We have gone through the record of the case in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We find that the High Court has very rightly taken the view that the earlier judgment of this Court "has quite clearly decided (questions) about the transfer, auction and eligibility of Muhammad Siddique (petitioner herein)".
4. No exception can be taken with the view that has prevailed in the High Court.
5. The petition is dismissed.