Mian REHMATULLAH vs MUHAMMAD AKRAM AND OTHERS
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed a writ petition on the grounds of laches. The petitioner challenged an order passed by a Settlement Commissioner on 8th August 1961, which had transferred a disputed house to the respondent. The petitioner filed the writ petition in 1974, claiming ignorance of the 1961 order. The High Court rejected the petition, finding no justification for the twelve-year delay. The Supreme Court addressed the core question of whether a delay of over twelve years in challenging an administrative order could be condoned based on a claim of ignorance. The Court held that the petitioner's claim of ignorance was untenable, noting that the Settlement Commissioner's order explicitly stated the parties and their counsel were present when the decision was announced. Furthermore, the Court established the principle that a reasonable person would not wait nearly thirteen years to ascertain the outcome of their own legal proceedings. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition due to laches and refused leave to appeal.
- Can a writ petition be maintained after a delay of twelve years based on a claim of ignorance of the impugned order?
- Is a statement in a judicial or quasi-judicial order that parties were present during the announcement of the decision sufficient to refute a claim of ignorance?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-On 8th August 1961, the Settlement Commissioner dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner herein against the order of transfer of the house in dispute in favour of the respondent. The parties were heard and the order announced to them.
2. ' On 11th January 1974, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming ignorance of the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner on the 8th August 1961. The learned Single Judge did not find any ground for condoning the delay of more than 12 years and dismissed the writ petition for laches.
3. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal reiterating that he has no knowledge of the order passed by the learned Settlement Commissioner. We are unable to accept the statement made by the petitioner as mentioned above. It is clearly stated in the order of the Settlement Commissioner that the parties and their counsel were present when the order was announced. In any case, no reasonable person will wait for nearly 13 years to know the result of revision petition which he had filed in the Court of Settlement Commissioner. In the circumstances no exception can be taken to the order passed by the High Court.
4. ' Leave to appeal is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.