MUHAMMAD DIN vs NOOR ALAM and 6 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Civil Revision by the High Court, which had upheld a decree in a suit for declaration and injunction. The plaintiffs, claiming to be the first allottees of land, sought to invalidate an alienation made by a co-defendant based on a subsequent illegal allotment. The petitioner, a defendant in the original suit, challenged the jurisdiction of the courts and argued that the plaintiffs' failure to complete documentation within a reasonable time caused the subsequent complications regarding the property. The Supreme Court rejected the petitioner's jurisdictional challenge, noting the High Court's correct reliance on established precedent. Regarding the merits, the Court held that the petitioner could not benefit from the alleged inaction or delay of the respondents in finalizing their documentation. Affirming the trial court's reliance on precedent concerning re-allotment, the Supreme Court found no merit in the petitioner's plea regarding entitlement and refused leave to appeal, thereby maintaining the lower courts' findings in favor of the first allottees.
- Can a subsequent allottee benefit from the alleged delay of a first allottee in completing documentation?
- Is a challenge to jurisdiction sustainable when the High Court has correctly relied on established precedent regarding the matter?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---A defendant in a suit for declaration and injunction has sought leave to appeal; against the dismissal by the High Court, of his Civil Revision. It had arisen out of suit of the respondents side claiming that they being first allottee any alienation by respondent No, 6 the petitioner's co-defendant, on the basis of an illegal subsequent allotment in his favour, would not affect their (the plaintiffs) rights on the basis of the first mentioned allotment. The plaintiffs/respondents' suit having been decreed throughout the petitioner has now sought leave to appeal.
2. ' The learned counsel has raised the question of jurisdiction but in the circumstances of the case the reliance of the High Court on Mian Muhammad Latif v. Province of West Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 180, was fully justified. Be that as it may, we asked the learned counsel if the petitioner has any case on merits. He then argued that although the respondents' predecessor-in-interest was prior allottee and the judgment of the trial Court in this behalf might not be assailable yet it was the duty of the respondents to get the documentation done in their favour within reasonable time. They having failed to do so led to the subsequent complications.
3. After hearing the learned counsel on this aspect of the matter we are satisfied that the petitioner could not take any advantage on account of so-called alleged inaction of the respondents side.
4. The reliance by the trial Court on Dost Muhammad and others v. Mst. Badal Jan and others 1976 SCM R 112 on the question of re-allotment was fully justified. There being no merits in the petitioner's plea on the question of allotment and entitlement leave to appeal is refused.