MOHAMMAD HANIF AND 11 Others vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND 3 Other
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed a Letters Patent appeal, which had challenged the dismissal of a constitutional petition. The petitioners, who were in possession of property in Gujranwala, contested the transfer of said property to respondent No. 3, who had acquired it as an unregistered industrial concern. The core legal questions were whether the High Court correctly applied the principle of res judicata to bar a second writ petition challenging the same underlying administrative order, and whether the nature of the property as an industrial concern was a finding of fact immune from writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly applied res judicata, as the second petition essentially challenged the same administrative findings upheld in the first unsuccessful writ petition. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the classification of the premises as an industrial concern was a finding of fact not subject to interference in writ jurisdiction. The principle laid down is that the doctrine of res judicata applies to writ jurisdiction proceedings where the underlying cause of action and administrative findings remain identical to those previously adjudicated.
- Does the principle of res judicata apply to proceedings in writ jurisdiction?
- Can a finding of fact recorded by competent Settlement Authorities be interfered with in writ jurisdiction?
- Is a second writ petition barred if it challenges an administrative order that was already upheld in a previous, unsuccessful writ petition involving the same subject matter?
- Article 98, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
- Section 20(2), Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
ORDER
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine a Letters Patent appeal from an order of a learned Single Judge of the same High Court dismissing a petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962.
2. This Constitutional petition was filed by 12 persons who were in possession of 11 small rooms in a portion of a building situated in village Thathi Aran, Tehsil Wazirabad, District Gujranwala. They claimed that they were in possession of this portion along with a large number of other persons since 1947 and were running handlooms in the premises. When the Settlement operations started, all of them filed forms under Settlement Scheme No. 7, although only three of them were claimant- displaced persons. The rest were non-claimants.
3. The respondent No. 3 applied for the transfer of the property in dispute as an unregistered factory on the ground that he was an allottee thereof along with one Kaloo. The property was transferred to the said respondent No. 3 as an unregistered industrial concern. The latter thereafter issued notices to the petitioners under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensa--petition and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, sometime in 1969. The petitioners challenged the transfer orders in favour of the said respondent, which bad been confirmed by the Settlement Commis--sioner, Lahore in a Writ Petition being No: 929/R of 1969 in the High Court. This was dismissed in limine on the 19th of September 1969.
4. The petitioners then moved the Settlement Commissioner under subsection (2) of section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, but this revision was dismissed on the 14th of April 1970. They filed another Writ Petition, No. 446/R of 1970, challenging the order of the Settlement Commissioner in revision.
5. Both the learned Single Judge and the Letters Patent Banc have taken the view that, since the previous writ petition was dismissed on merits, the petitioners were not entitled to move the second application in the writ jurisdiction on the same cause of action.
6. The High Court also held that the nature of the premises in dispute was concluded by a finding of fact recorded by the competent Settlement Authorities.
7. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition for special leave has urged the same grounds before us and has contended that the High Court was wrong in taking the view that the second application was barred on principles of res judicata, because, by the second application, another order of a different authority was sought to be challenged, namely, the order of the Settlement Commissioner in revision passed on the 14th of April 1970. This may be technically correct; but since the Settlement Commissioner did not interfere in revision with the orders of the Settlement Authorities which had held the premises in dispute to be an unregistered industrial concern, the main challenge was to the order of the previous Settlement Authorities which had already been challenged unsuccessfully in the earlier Writ Petition No. 929/R of 1969. This appears to be correct and, therefore, no legitimate objection can be made to the High Court applying the principle of res judicata to proceedings in the writ jurisdiction as well. This is based on two decisions of this Court in the cases of Fazal Din v. Custodian, Evacuee Property (1971 Law Notes 664 (SC)) and Mohammad Yaqub v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1965 SC 254).
8. The finding as to the nature of the property in dispute is also clearly a finding of fact which could not have been interfered with in the writ jurisdiction.
9. We see no substance in any of the points raised and accordingly dismiss this petition.