SHADI KHAN vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (CONSOLIDATION) and others
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court regarding the transfer of a plot by the Settlement Authority. The petitioner challenged the decision on the grounds that he was denied an adequate opportunity of hearing, that he was in possession of the plot, and that the respondent was not entitled to the transfer of the plot. The Supreme Court observed that the first two contentions were matters of fact already concluded by the High Court's findings. Regarding the third contention, the Court held that if the petitioner himself was not entitled to the transfer of the plot, he lacked the necessary locus standi to challenge the transfer of that same plot to another party. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition and refused leave to appeal, affirming that a party without a valid claim to property cannot challenge the property's transfer to a third party.
- Does a petitioner have locus standi to challenge the transfer of a plot to another party if the petitioner themselves is not entitled to the transfer?
- Are findings of fact by the High Court regarding the opportunity of hearing and possession conclusive in a petition for leave to appeal?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Petitioner's writ petition regarding the transfer of a plot by the Settlement Authority having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal.
2. ' The grievance of his learned counsel is two-fold. One, that the petitioner was not afforded an adequate opportunity of hearing; and two, that the petitioner was in possession of the plot. The same, therefore, could not be transferred to the respondent's side. Learned counsel has also contended that even if the petitioner was not entitled to the transfer, respondent No,3 also was not entitled to the transfer of the plot.
3. The first two questions raised by the learned counsel stand concluded by findings of fact by the High Court against the petitioner. Regarding the third, A suffice it to observe that if the petitioner could not be transferred the plot in question, he loses his locus standi to challenge its transfer to respondent No,3.
4. ' Thus there being no force in it, this petition for leave to appeal is refused.