MUMTAZ ALI And Others vs ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER And Other
This matter concerned a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an application seeking correction and clarification of a High Court order, which had been passed based on a compromise between the parties. The petitioners, whose predecessors-in-interest had pending land allotment units, challenged an allotment made to respondent No. 3, who allegedly held land in excess of his entitlement. A compromise was reached in the High Court, allocating specific land to the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners sought to reopen the matter, arguing that some of their units remained unsatisfied and that respondent No. 3 still held excess land. The core legal question was whether a decision settled by compromise could be reopened or clarified on these grounds. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that a matter settled by compromise, where parties were aware that some units would remain unsatisfied, cannot be reopened merely to satisfy further claims or correct perceived imbalances. The principle established is that compromise decrees, once entered into with full knowledge of the facts, are binding and should not be disturbed.
- Can a decision based on a compromise between parties be reopened if some claims remain unsatisfied?
- Can a compromise decree be clarified or corrected under Sections 151, 152, and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure if the parties were aware of the facts at the time of the compromise?
- Does the existence of excess land held by one party justify reopening a matter already settled by compromise?
- Are parties bound by a compromise decree even if they later discover that some of their entitlements remain unfulfilled?
- Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 152, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 153, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--Ghaus Muhammad, the predecessor-in---interest of petitioners 1, 2 and 3, and Mst. Aimna Bibi petitioner No. 4 were allotted land in Village Kul Bajwa. However, 350 units of Ghaus Muhammad and 430 units of Mst. Aimna Bibi remained pending for allotment in the village.
Ch. Abdur Rehman, respondent No. 3, who had already been allotted land equivalent to 756 units in Village Data Groaya, was further allotted, on 30-9-1964, land equal to 702 units in the said village Kul Bajwa, which thus gave his 498 units in excess of his total entitlement of 962 units. The petitioners on coming to know of this allotment agitated the matter, which, in due course, came up before the High Court in the petitioners' Writ Petition No. 1224/11 of 1974. The writ petition was, however, disposed of on 7-5-1978 on the basis of the compromise reached between the parties, according to which an area measuring 56 Kanals each would go to Ghaus Muhammad and Mst.
Aimna Bibi from the area under the allotment of Ch. Abdur Rehman in village Kul Bajwa. Ghaus Muhammad, however, died shortly thereafter, i.e, on 19-6-1978. The petitioners moved on 10-3-1979, an application under sections 151, 152 and 153, C.P.C. For correction and clarification of the aforesaid order of the High Court, dated 7-5-1978, so that the land held by Ch. Abdur Rehman in excess of his entitlement could go to the petitioners in satisfaction of their still pending units. The application was, however, dismissed on 8-10-1979 for the reason that they could not be allowed to reopen the decision based upon a compromise merely because they still had some unsatisfied units pending.
2. It has been argued before us that even after giving effect to the compromise, 403 units of the petitioners still remained pending and that Ch. Abdur Rehman was holding land in excess of his entitlement which would not only go to satisfy the said pending units but would also leave some area which would revert to the State. We are afraid, the ground taken will not justify the reopening of the matter already settled by a compromise between the parties who had been aware even at that time that some units would still remain unsatisfied after the compromise. The petition for grant of leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed.