NAZAR MUHAMMAD And Another vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeal against an order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner regarding property demarcation and rent assessment. The petitioners, Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Siddiq, challenged the High Court's dismissal of their earlier Constitution petition. The High Court had dismissed the initial petition on two primary grounds: first, that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching the court against the order passed in the second revision petition; and second, that if a review petition was still pending before the Settlement Officers, the writ petition was premature. The Letters Patent Bench affirmed these findings. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the lower courts had thoroughly examined the facts, claims, and entitlements of the parties. As the petitioners failed to demonstrate any error of law in the impugned judgment, the Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal, holding that no case for interference was made out.
- Can a writ petition be dismissed on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching the court?
- Is a writ petition premature if a review petition regarding the same matter is still pending before the administrative authority?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the petitioner fails to demonstrate an error of law in the impugned judgment?
ORDER
1. GHULAM MUJADDID, J.---Muhammad Siddiq, his brother Nazar Muhammad, their cousin Nur Muhammad and Muhammad Ibrahim filed a Constitution petition in the erstwhile High Court of Pakistan at Lahore against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 14-5-63. The Constitution petition was dismissed by a learned Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan against which a Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the petitioners. That too was dismissed by judgment dated 1-4-85.
2. Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Siddiq now seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Letters Patent Bench.
3. Both the learned Judge as well as the Letters Patent Bench discussed the facts, claim and entitlement of the parties thoroughly. The Constitution petition was dismissed because, "The, order was passed against the petitioners on the 6th of May 1961 in the second revision petition and they approached this Court only some time in October, 1963. This inordinate delay stands unexplained because no interest is shown to have been taken by Nazar Muhammad to pursue his aforesaid review petition. If as a matter of fact any such review petition still awaits disposal at the hands of the Settlement Officers, the writ petition is premature and merits dismissal on this short ground."
4. When the matter came up before the Letters Patent Bench, the aforesaid observation made by the learned Single Judge was confirmed.
5. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 14-5-63 after inspection of the spot, observed as under:-- "The division and the demarcation of the property among the parties have already been made by the Settlement and Reh. Commr. Vide his orders, dated 18-11-60. The only thing which remains at present is to determine the rent of each portion as directed by A&R.C. All the shops, more or less being equal in dimension are assessed as follows: (1)Muhammad Siddiq and Nazar Muhammad jointlyRs.20.
6. (2)Noor Muhammad. Rs.20.
7. (3)Muhammad Ibrahim. (Rs.20.
8. (4)Muhammad Amir. Rs.21."
9. It was this order which was upheld by the High Court.
10. Learned counsel was unable to point out any error of law in the impugned judgment. No case is made out for leave to appeal.
11. Dismissed.