Mst. SHAHNAZ BEGUM vs Mst. ZULAIKHA BIBI And 5 Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a revision petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the rejection of the petitioner's plaint by the lower courts. The petitioner, Mst. Shahnaz Begum, challenged the allotment of 5 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land to respondent Mst. Zulaikha Bibi, claiming the land had previously been allotted to her uncle, Chaudhry Muhammad Abdullah, on an industrial basis. The core legal question was whether the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action or if the rejection of the plaint under summary procedure was justified. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had provided cogent findings justifying the rejection of the plaint. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest, Chaudhry Muhammad Abdullah, had already exhausted his legal remedies before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities regarding the disputed land transfer. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that a civil suit cannot be maintained to re-litigate matters where administrative remedies have already been exhausted.
- Can a civil suit be maintained to challenge land allotments when the predecessor-in-interest has already exhausted remedies before Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities?
- Is the rejection of a plaint justified when the plaintiff fails to disclose a valid cause of action after previous administrative adjudication?
RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---Mst. Shahnaz Begum seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 3-4-1989, dismissing her revision petition against the judgment of a learned Additional District Judge of Rawalpindi dated 2-4-1984, who affirmed the order of a learned Civil Judge of Rawalpindi dated 11-5-1981 rejecting the petitioner's plaint.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there was a dispute as regards whether 5 Kanals and 4 Marlas of land which was allotted to Mst. Zulaikha Bibi respondent No.1 as agricultural land in lieu of her verified claim, could be so allotted to her, as the same, with a large parcel of land, had already been allotted to Chaudhry Muhammad Abdullah, petitioner's uncle, on an industrial basis, the petitioner filed a suit for the said matter to be sorted out, but the plaint was illegally rejected by the Civil Judge and which decision has teen maintained by the two higher Courts. It is submitted that the facts stated in the plaint did not entitle the plaint to be rejected in that summary manner.
3. All the three Courts have in some detail discussed this matter and given their cogent findings.
The plaint was rightly rejected. Even otherwise Chaudhry Muhammad Abdullah, predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner, had already 1 exhausted his remedies before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities against the transfer of the disputed land made in favour of Mst. Zulaikha Bibi, respondent No.1. In these circumstances, no interference is called for. This petition is therefore, dismissed.