MUHAMMAD HAYAT KHAN and another vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing their second constitutional petition regarding the allotment of a Khasra number. Their first constitutional petition was dismissed on 26 March 1983, against which no further appeal or challenge was pursued. Instead, the petitioners filed a second constitutional petition, which the High Court dismissed in limine on the grounds of laches, discretionary nature of constitutional jurisdiction, and the considerable delay of over ten years in challenging the impugned order dated 5 September 1972, as well as the finality attached to the prior dismissal. The Supreme Court considered the arguments and held that the view taken by the High Court was unexceptionable, noting there was no legal justification for reopening the matter when the petitioners had previously acquiesced in the earlier decision. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming the principle that successive constitutional petitions on the same subject are barred, particularly where the prior dismissal is accepted and the subsequent petition suffers from gross laches.
- Whether a second constitutional petition is maintainable on the same subject-matter after the dismissal of the first constitutional petition has attained finality?
- Can the High Court refuse to exercise its discretionary constitutional jurisdiction on the ground of laches and delay in challenging an administrative order?
- Is a delay of ten years in challenging an allotment order passed by the Settlement Department sufficient ground to decline relief in writ jurisdiction?
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioners who approached the High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction for the second time, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 10- 12-1983 whereby their petition was dismissed and also appeal against such dismissal.
2. ' In the first round, their Constitutional petition was dismissed on 26th of March, 1983. They preferred no further relief against it, but filed another Constitutional petition on the same subject which was dismissed by the High Court in limine. The High Court observed as follows:- "The further argument of the learned counsel that the previous writ petition having been dismissed on a technical ground the present writ petition was not barred, has also not impressed me. It is to be remembered that the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is discretionary and the conduct of a petitioner is a relevant consideration for exercise of discretion. I am not inclined to disturb the allotment of the respondents after a delay of ten years. The petitioners are to blame themselves in failing to seek timely remedies and in not agitating against the impugned order, dated 5-9-72 by way of their appeal or revision before the Officers in the hierarchy of the Settlement Department."
3. ' Appeal was dismissed with the following observations:-- "The appellarits had sought this Khasra number in the previous writ petition bearing No,1039/R of 1973 and their efforts failed when the writ petition was dismissed on 26-3-1983. The proper thing for the appellants was to take further proceedings in that matter, if they were interested in seeking the allotment of the aforesaid Khasra number. Filing of the second writ petition was not called for and has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge inter alia on the ground that it suffered from laches. The impugned order in the writ petition was passed on 5-9-1972 when the writ petition out of which the present appeal arises was filed on 5-7-1983. The other consideration that weighed with the learned Single Judge was that the allotment of the respondents, after more than 10 years, cannot be interfered with. This too was perfectly a valid consideration to be taken into account."
4. ' Raja Abdul Razzaque, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners contends that it was a technical objection which should not have stood in the way of doing substantial justice and granting the relief which the petitioners rightly deserved.
5. We have been taken through the record and find that the view taken by the 'High Court is unexceptionable and there is no legal justification for reopening the matter when the petitioners' earlier reconciled themselves with the decision, referred to above.
6. ' No ground is made out and leave to appeal is refused.