ABDUL JABBAR QADARI vs THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE
This matter arises from petitions for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's intra-court appeals concerning the allotment of agricultural land. The core legal question involves the validity of competing claims to disputed evacuee land previously allotted to a third party whose original allotment was later cancelled as bogus, and whether a petitioner whose initial claim was finally rejected in earlier writ proceedings can reagitate the same claim. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's claim to the specific land in dispute stood finally rejected in earlier writ proceedings which he failed to challenge, thereby leaving him with no subsisting claim to agitate. The key principle laid down is that a party who fails to challenge an adverse finding and final rejection of their claim in writ proceedings cannot subsequently reagitate the same claim in higher appellate forums.
- Can a party reagitate a claim to disputed land when their initial claim was rejected in earlier writ proceedings and left unchallenged?
- Whether an allotment obtained through bogus means is liable to cancellation under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act?
- Does a petitioner have locus standi to challenge the disposal of land after their underlying claim to that specific property has been finally dismissed?
- Section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--These are two petitions for special leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 30-1-83 of the Lahore High Court whereby the intra-Court appeals of the petitioner were dismissed.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to agricultural land measuring 197 kanals and 10 marlas situate in village Muradian of tehsil Hafizabad. It was allotted to one Ilam Din in 1964. Ilam Din sold it to one Abdur Rahman who in his turn on 7-12-1967 sold the same to Amanullah Khan, respondent No,2.
3. On an incorrect report submitted by the patwari that the land in dispute was still available for transfer, a Deputy Settlement Commissioner by an order, dated 19-6-73 allotted it to the petitioner.
However, when the true position came to the notice of the authorities, this allotment was cancelled on 19-1-74. The petitioner filed a revision petition to challenge the order of cancellation.
4. During inspection, an inspection team noticed that the allotment obtained by Ilam Din was bogus. Consequently, proceedings under section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act were initiated and by an order, dated 31-1-1974 the allotment of Ilam Din was cancelled. Amanullah Khan, respondent No,2, made an application to the Chief Settlement Commissioner that he should be permitted to purchase the land in dispute. This application was allowed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and in pursuance of the order made by him, Amanullah Khan deposited the purchase money.
5. The petitioner moved an application before the Chief Settlement Commissioner protesting against the sale of the land in dispute to Amanullah Khan during the pendency of his revision petition. The Chief Settlement Commissioner allowed the application and withdrew the order of sale earlier made in favour of Amanullah Khan.
6. Amanullah Khan challenged the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner in writ jurisdiction in the High Court. On his own request, the petitioner was also impleaded as a party to the writ petition.
A learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner with the direction that the matter should be decided afresh. However, so far as the claim of the petitioner to the land in dispute was concerned, it was rejected with the observation that if he so wished, he could seek allotment of the other land, not sold to Amanullah Khan, which had been obtained by Ilam Din but had been taken away from him in the proceedings initiated under section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act.
7. The petitioner did not challenge the order of the High Court through a petition in this Court. It will thus appear that the claim of the petitioner to the land in dispute stood finally rejected.
8. After the remand the Chief Settlement Commissioner held that neither the petitioner nor Amanullah Khan was entitled to obtain the land in dispute. Accordingly, he directed that it should be disposed of through public auction. Both the petitioner as well as Amanullah Khan challenged the order of Chief Settlement Commissioner again in the High Court. A learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner but allowed that of Amanullah Khan. From the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner preferred intra-Court appeals which were dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
9. As already noticed, the claim of the petitioner to the land in dispute stood rejected in the first writ petition. He did not care to challenge it before this A Court. He therefore has no claim to agitate before us in respect of the land in dispute. We will accordingly dismiss these petitions.