RAZA MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from a property dispute over a composite property in Vehari. The property was originally transferred to respondent No. 4, Mst. Waheedan, in 1959. Following a dispute with the petitioner, Raza Muhammad, who occupied a portion of the shop, the parties entered into a compromise on November 25, 1967. Under this agreement, specific portions of the shop and the Chaubara were allocated to the petitioner, while the remaining portions were allocated to Mst. Waheedan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having accepted the terms of the 1967 compromise, retained the legal standing to subsequently claim the property portion allocated to Mst. Waheedan. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was bound by the terms of the compromise, which had remained unchallenged. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner lacked the locus standi to assert claims over the property portion transferred to Mst. Waheedan. The key principle laid down is that a party is strictly bound by the terms of a valid compromise agreement and cannot subsequently agitate claims contrary to that settlement.
- Is a party bound by the terms of a compromise agreement regarding property transfer?
- Does a party have locus standi to claim property that was previously allocated to another party via a binding compromise?
ORDER
1. M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- A composite property bearing No. B/50, Ghallah Mandi, Vehari, comprising a shop and Chaubara over it, was transferred in favour of Mst. Waheedan (respondent No.4), by association, on 28-11-1959. Petitioner Raza Muhammad, who was in possession of a portion of the shop, agitated the matter, in the course of which the dispute was resolved on 25-11-1967 by a compromise reached between the parties whereby the portion of the shop in possession of Raza Muhammad alongwith the Chaubara over it on the southern side was transferred to him and the remaining portion of the shop alongwith the Chaubara over it was transferred to Mst. Waheedan.
2. Admittedly there is no dispute now with regard to the property so transferred to the petitioner.
3. Unfortunately, a dispute arose in regard to the property transferred to Mst. Waheedan as the same was put to auction and purchased by one Muhammad Tufail but she emerged successful. During the litigation, however, the petitioner also jumped in, laying claim to the portion transferred to Mst.
4. Waheedan but having failed before the Settlement authorities, filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order, dated 6-5-1980 for the reason that he was bound by the terms of the compromise and could not seek any portion transferred to Mst.
5. Waheedan.
2. Obviously the petitioner is bound by the order, dated 25-11-1967 passed in terms of the compromise against which he did not agitate. He had, therefore, no locus standi to claim any portion transferred in terms of the compromise in favour of Mst. Waheedan. His plea for grant of leave to appeal has no merit. The petition is dismissed.