MUHAMMAD ISLAM KHAN vs Mst. RURI AND Other
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, which dismissed the writ petition challenging the decisions of the Settlement authorities regarding the transfer of a house under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Initially, the Settlement authorities divided and transferred the house to the contesting parties based on their respective possessions, an arrangement previously upheld by the High Court and left undisturbed by the Supreme Court. The petitioner subsequently approached the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to obtain a demarcation report declaring the house impartible, which the higher Settlement authorities and the High Court viewed as an improper attempt to reopen a finalized matter. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's actions constituted an abuse of the process of the court under the guise of demarcation. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Can a party reopen a final settlement regarding the transfer of a property through a subsequent application for demarcation?
- Whether attempting to relitigate a settled property dispute under the guise of demarcation constitutes an abuse of the process of the court?
- Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, A. C. J.-The dispute relates to the transfer of a house under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.
2. The Settlement authorities divided the house and transferred it to the petitioner and the respondents according to their respective possession. This order was maintained by the High Court in writ jurisdiction and leave to appeal was refused by this Court.
3. The petitioner again approached the Deputy Settlement Commissioner with the prayer that his part of the house may be demarcated and managed to obtain a report from him that the house was impartible. This was a clumsy attempt to reopen the case. The higher Settlement authorities did not agree with the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the High Court has again dismissed the writ petition fled by the petitioner to call in question the orders passed by the Settlement authorities. He now seeks leave to appeal.
4. It is sufficient to state that the petitioner has under the disguise of "demarcation" tried to abuse the process of the Court and should think himself fortunate that the High Court has not' taken action against him for resorting to such a course.
5. The petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.