TARIQ MAHMOOD vs NIAMAT ALI KHAN And 12 Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that remanded a case regarding the cancellation of land allotment to the Deputy Commissioner for a fresh decision. The land in question was originally allotted to displaced persons and subsequently purchased by the petitioner. Following an inquiry revealing that the allotment was fraudulent—specifically that the officials involved were not posted at the relevant location at the time—the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the allotment. The High Court, with the consent of all parties' counsel, remanded the matter for a fresh decision. The petitioner challenged this remand, arguing it was improper following the repeal of the relevant legislation and asserting his status as a bona fide purchaser. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner was represented by counsel in the High Court and had consented to the remand order. Finding no evidence that the counsel lacked authority and noting the petitioner failed to seek recall of the order from the High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned judgment contained no legal infirmity.
- Can a party challenge a consent order passed by the High Court on the basis that their counsel lacked authority without first seeking recall of the order from that same court?
- Is a remand order passed by the High Court with the consent of the parties' counsel legally sustainable?
- Does the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958 preclude the remand of a case concerning land allotment disputes?
- Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
ORDER
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, CJ. ---Agricultural land described in the impugned judgment was allotted to Najeeb-ud-Din and Tabey Hassan sons of Rajor alias Raju, displaced persons from Ambala District, against the verified claim. Niamat Ali Khan purchased the same land from them and sold it to petitioner Tariq Mahmood and others vide registered deeds. During enquiry it was discovered that the allotment was fraudulent inasmu ch as to officers, namely, Syed Akhtar Ali Shah, Tehsildar, and Malik Muhammad Ali Gheba, Revenue Assistant, who were the member and the Chairman of Allotment Committee respectively, were not even posted at Jhelum in 1968. In view of such report, respondent No.6 (Dy. Commissioner/Collector of District Jhelum) cancelled the allotment.
2. Respondents Nos.l to 5 filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was allowed and the matter has been remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Jhelum for fresh decision. Grievance of the petitioner before us is that such order of remand could not have been passed long the after the repeal of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act and that the petitioner is bona fide purchaser and transferee of the land in dispute which is in his possession since long.
3. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that it has been passed by the High Court with the consent of the counsel of the parties appearing before it who had all agreed to the remand of the case for fresh decision after hearing the parties. Petitioner was respondent No.8 before the High Court in the writ proceedings and was represented by a counsel. Petitioner has failed to satisfy us that he had not given authority to his counsel to give consent to such order of remand. If his contention is correct that order of remand was without his consent, he could have approached the High Court for recall of the order on that ground. We see no infirmity or flaw in the impugned judgment and refuse leaveon the ground that this petition has no merits.