UMER BIBI And Others vs SALIMUDDIN And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld orders denying occupancy rights to the petitioners in evacuee land and holding them liable to pay Batai share as mesne profits. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could be granted relief regarding the order of mesne profits when no such contention or grievance had been raised in the main writ petition filed before the High Court. The Supreme Court held that there was no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order since the grievance regarding mesne profits was not raised in the writ petition. The key principle laid down is that the appellate or higher court will not entertain contentions or grant relief concerning matters that were not specifically pleaded or raised in the constitutional petition before the lower forum.
- Whether relief regarding mesne profits can be granted when no such contention was raised in the writ petition?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an order concerning mesne profits if the grievance was not made in the High Court?
ORDER
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J: --Petitioners claimed occupancy rights in evacuee land which were denied to them by the Deputy Custodian, Evacuee Properties, vide order dated 24-3-1976 and it was held that they were "liable to pay Batai share according to the practice prevailing in the area right from 1-3-1947 till the date of confirmation of the allotment of the land in question which should form part of the Compensation Pool". This is vide order dated 24-3-1976. Their revision petition was dismissed by the learned Custodian, Evacuee Property, Lahore vide order dated 20-9- 1980. They Filed a Writ Petition No. 888/R/1980, wherein claim to the land was given up, but it was prayed that they be allowed relief as regards the order of mesne profits. The petition was dismissed for the reason that no such contention was raised in the writ petition. This is vide order dated 1-7-1987. Petitioners seek leave to appeal.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find no justifiable reason to interfere in the order as regards the mesne profits about which no grievance was made in the writ petition filed in the High Court.
3. Petition is, therefore, dismissed.