MUHAMMAD YAQOOB KHAN vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE/CHIEF
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition in limine on the ground of laches regarding an urban settlement case where the property was auctioned in 1972. The core legal question is whether the constitutional petition should have been dismissed for laches when the petitioner was impleaded as a party in a Supreme Court appeal that was disposed of by compromise in February 1981, and the writ petition was filed shortly thereafter in March 1981. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the conduct of the petitioner warranted examination regarding the application of laches in light of the prior proceedings and compromise. The key principle laid down is that the timeline and active participation in related apex court proceedings are vital factors to be considered when evaluating the bar of laches against a constitutional petition.
- Whether a constitutional petition can be dismissed in limine on the ground of laches when the petitioner was pursuing related litigation before the Supreme Court?
- Does participation as a party in Supreme Court proceedings affect the computation of laches for filing a writ petition?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 29-3-1981, whereby a constitutional petition arising out of an urban settlement case was dismissed in limine on ground of laches.
2. The case has a long history, but in view of the sole ground on which the writ was dismissed being one of laches it is not necessary to give all the details of the proceedings. The fact which is relevant to the question of laches and was noticed by the High Court is that the property having been auctioned in 1972, the petitioner failed to assail its transfer, for nearly a decade.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the' petitioner and of the caveators, we considered it a fit case for examination as to whether the conduct of the petitioner was such that his writ petition should have been dismissed on ground of laches inasmuch as it is not denied that he on his own application was impleaded in the Supreme Court as a party in an appeal filed by another party; and, this appeal was disposed of on account of a compromise between the said other party and the respondents in February, 1981; while the writ petition out of which the present petition has arisen was filed in the High Court on 22-3-1981.
4. We accordingly allow this petition and grant leave to appeal. Security Rs.2,000. The interim order for maintenance of status quo earlier passed shall continue. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents, if necessary.