Mst. SAKINA BIM and others vs MURID HUSSAIN and others
This matter concerns two petitions for special leave to appeal regarding the ownership of an evacuee property shop in Jehania. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners, claiming through predecessors-in-interest, had a valid basis to challenge the transfer of the property to the respondent, Murid Hussain, and whether the High Court correctly dismissed the petitions based on the lack of merit and the doctrine of laches. The Supreme Court held that the claim of the first petitioner (Muhammad Ismail) was correctly rejected as his initial claim was dismissed by Settlement Authorities and the High Court in 1962, with no further pursuit of the matter. Regarding the second petitioner (Gulzar Ahmad), the Court held that the High Court properly dismissed the petition due to unexplained laches, as the transfer to the respondent occurred in 1976 and was not challenged until 1982. The key principle laid down is that a claim to property, once rejected by competent authorities and courts, cannot be revived after significant delay, and that unexplained laches serves as a valid ground for dismissing a writ petition.
- Can a claim to evacuee property be revived after it has been rejected by Settlement Authorities and the High Court decades prior?
- Does an unexplained delay of six years in challenging a property transfer order constitute laches sufficient to dismiss a writ petition?
- Is a petitioner entitled to challenge a property transfer if they failed to pursue their initial claim after a previous dismissal by the High Court?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The dispute in these two petitions for special leave to appeal relates to a shop situate in Jehania. It was evacuee property. Muhammad Ismail, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners in C.P. No, 1367, applied for its transfer. The basis of his claim to the shop was that he was in possession of a Khokha built upon a part of the Thara of the shop. His claim was rejected by the Settlement Authorities whereupon he filed a writ petition in the High Court (W.P No, 2600-R of 1%2). It was dismissed on 26-11-62 by a learned Single Judge. With the observations:- "It appears that the Thara in possession of the petitioner has not been held to be a part of the shop in dispute. This being the case, the petitioner has no right to get the shop. If so considered, the petitioner may bid in the auction,"
' Muhammad Ismail did not pursue the matter any further.
2. On 29-10-1966 Gulzar Ahmad, petitioner in C.P. No, 1422 of 1983 applied to the Settlement authorities for the transfer of the shop under Scheme No, VIII. While his applicaion was pending, he transferred the possession of the shop to Murid Hussain, respondent. On the application of Murid Hussain, the shop was transferred to him on 6-11-1976.
3. Muhammad Ismail filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the transfer made in favour of Murid Hussain. It was dismissed on 11-10-1966 by a fairely detailed order. He filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition.
4. On 9-2-1982/15-2-1982 Gulzar Ahmad filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the transfer made in favour of Murid Hussain. His petition and the Letters Patent Appeal of Muhammad Ismail were heard together by a Division Bench. They were both dismissed. The legal representatives of Muhammad Ismail and Gulzar Ahmad seek leave to appeal from this Court.
5. So far as the petition of the legal representatives of Muhammad Ismail is concerned, the learned Advocate-on-Record appearing on their behalf has not been able to show the basis on which they are claiming the shop in dispute. His claim to the shop was rejected as far back as in 1962 by the Settlement authorities and his writ petition was also dismissed. He did not pursue his claim any further. The High Court was therefore right in rejecting his writ petition.
6. As regards the petition filed by Gulzar Ahmad, it was dismissed by the High Court on the ground of lathes. The order of transfer was made in favour of Murid Hussain in 1976. The petitioners did not care to challenge it till 1982. The High Court found that there was no explanation whatsoever why he had kept quiet for so many years. Before us, too, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to offer any satisfactory explanation in this regard. We are therefore not prepared to interfere with the order of the High Court.
7. For the reasons stated above, leave to appeal is refused in both the petitions.
' Leave to .