GHULAM RASOOL AND Others vs ALI AKBAR AND Other
The petitioners challenged the cancellation of their land allotment, which had been granted in lieu of 182 P.I. Units in village Koreki, Tehsil Daska. Following an appeal by respondent No. 1, the allotment was cancelled, and subsequent revisions were dismissed. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitioners' writ petition, reasoning that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had relied on a prior, final order dated 23rd February 1967, which had already determined the classification of the lands in question. Consequently, the High Court declined to interfere, despite arguments regarding the timeliness of the respondent's appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that the High Court possesses discretion under its writ jurisdiction. The Court held that the High Court is not obligated to interfere in proceedings where substantial justice has been achieved, even if those proceedings were initiated irregularly or were subject to valid legal objections. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Is the High Court bound to interfere in writ jurisdiction when substantial justice has been done despite procedural irregularities?
- Can a High Court refuse to interfere in a writ petition where a prior order on the same issue has attained finality?
1. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-The petitioners were allotted lands equivalent to 1420 P. I. Units in village Koreki, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot. Then again on the 13th of January, 1969, they were given lands in lieu of 182 P. I. Units in the same area. As against this order respondent No. 1 went up in appeal which was accepted and the land last granted to the petitioners was cancelled. They went up in revision to the Settlement Commissioner, but the revision was dismissed on the 10th of April, 1971. They challenged this order by a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, but the writ petition was dismissed because it was found that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had relied on an earlier order passed by another Additional Settlement Commissioner on the 23rd February, 1967, in a proceeding to which the petitioners were parties and the question of the classification of their lands was determined therein. That order had become final and, therefore, the same question could not be re-opened. 1n the circumstances, although there was a question as to whether the appeal of A.I Akbar was within time or not, the High Court refused to interfere.
2. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition complains that the High Court has refused to quash an order which was on the face of it without jurisdiction.
3. Under the writ jurisdiction the High Court has a discretion and it is not bound to interfere in a case where substantial justice has been done even though the proceedings in which this justice has been done were initiated irregularly or a legal objection to the order in maintainable.
4. This petition is accordingly dismissed.
Cited by 4 cases
- Asif Hussain vs Election Commission of Pakistan etc 2022 LHC 8269
- ASIF HUSSAIN Versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN through Chief Election Commission 2025 PLD 446
- ALTAF AHMAD ASMAT vs SARFRAZ HUSSAIN AND 2 OTHERS 1984 CLC 1308
- ABDUL MUQTADIR KHAN vs COLLECTOR AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, D. I. 1983 CLC 1842