ABDUL RASHID And Others vs THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a writ petition regarding the cancellation of a property transfer. The core dispute arose when the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Nathey Khan, obtained a transfer of land that was subsequently claimed by respondent No. 2 as part of a larger industrial concern previously transferred to him. Following an appeal, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner cancelled Nathey Khan's Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) on the grounds of fraud and the filing of a belated application under Scheme No. VI without condonation of delay. The petitioners were eventually ejected from the land in 1980. After exhausting administrative remedies, they filed a writ petition in 1985, which the High Court dismissed due to delay, laches, and the suppression of material facts. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding that the petitioners failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in challenging the cancellation order and had suppressed material facts in their writ petition. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal.
- Can a writ petition be dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches?
- Does the suppression of material facts in a writ petition justify its dismissal?
- Is a belated application for the transfer of land under Scheme No. VI maintainable without condonation of delay?
ORDER
RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J: --Abdul Rahseed and others petitioners, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 24-2-1988.
2. The late Sardar Muhammad Khan Alvi, respondent No.2, was transferred Saroop Bansi Engineering Works, an industrial concern with site measuring 72 Kanals 13 Marlas on 5-3-1959. P.T.D.
Was issued later in this respect. The late Nathey Khan (predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners) secured transfer of one Kanal and one Marla of land of Khasra No.169/908 on his B.S. Form through order of the D.S.C. On 27-1-1962. Later, Nathey Khan moved an application for correction of Khasra number and obtained P.T.D. For the said land bearing Khasra No.465/8,9 Min.
Respondent No.2 appealed against the transfer of the land made in favour of Nathey Khan on the ground that it comprised a part of the property transferred to him. Ultimately on 5-11-1976 the appeal was accepted and the P.T.D. Of Nathey Khan was cancelled on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud and that the application filed under Scheme No.VI for transfer of the land was belated and that delay in filing the same was not got condemned from the competent authority.
On 25-10-1980 the petitioners were ultimately ejected from the small parcel of land. After unsuccessfully moving the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 5-9-1983 and 21-4-1984, the petitioners finally moved a writ petition in 1985 seeking redress, which was dismissed for a number of objections, including delay and laches.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners is not able to satisfactorily explain the delay in the lodgment of the writ petition which was almost nine years after the P.T.D. Of the petitioners was cancelled on 5-11-1976 by the D.S.C. (Plots), Lahore, after hearing the parties. The petitioners suppressed material facts from the writ petition which they were duty bound to disclose. We see no good grounds for granting leave to appeal. This petition is dismissed.