ABDUL REHMAN and others vs NISAR AHMED and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a constitutional petition challenging the adjustment of evacuee land allotments made by the Additional Commissioner in 1977. The core legal questions were whether the High Court correctly dismissed the petition on the grounds of laches and whether the petitioners established their status as an aggrieved person to challenge the respondents' land allotments. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding no illegality in the dismissal. The Court held that the petitioners failed to provide evidence of their alleged efforts to obtain certified copies of the order to excuse the significant delay, thereby justifying the finding of laches. Furthermore, on the merits, the Court determined that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that they possessed unsatisfied entitlement units, which is a prerequisite for maintaining a constitutional petition to challenge the allotments of others. The key principle laid down is that a petitioner must specifically plead and demonstrate their own unsatisfied entitlement to establish locus standi as an aggrieved person when challenging the land allotments of another party.
- Can a constitutional petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches when the petitioner fails to provide evidence of diligence in obtaining necessary documents?
- Is a petitioner required to demonstrate unsatisfied entitlement units to establish standing as an aggrieved person when challenging the land allotments of another?
- Does a court err in dismissing a petition where the petitioner fails to plead specific grounds regarding their own entitlement in relation to the disputed allotments?
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.-- Noor Din predecessor-in interest of the petitioners and Sardar Ali predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had obtained allotments of evacuee lands in different villages against their verified claims. A dispute arose about allotments of their lands qua their entitlement in terms of P.I. Units. The Additional Commissioner through. Order dated 20.7.1977 after examining the record as to the entitlement of the parties calculated the P.I. Units according :to which both the parties were entitled to allotment of lands and he adjusted the allotments already made to them according to their entitlement against which the petitioners feeling aggrieved filed the constitutional petition before the High Court in the year 1979 has been ,dismissed both on merits and on the ground of 'aches as well through the impugned judgment dated 22.2.2000 against which leave is sought.
Learned counsel for the petitioners: submitted that the petition did not suffer from laches, for it was explained that application for obtaining certified copy of Settlement Commissioner's order was mane in the year 1977 but the same had been misplaced by the Copying Agency and the petitioners had been making efforts and making applications repeatedly thereafter complaining that copy had not been supplied to them. In this record, he has referred averments made in the petition but we find that no annexure was appended with the writ petition to demonstrate that any such application was made by the petitioners in this matter, therefore, the finding of the learned Judge in Chamber that the petition suffered from laches does not suffer from any illegality.
3. Even on merits, we have gone through the order of the Settlement Commissioner and the judgment of the learned Judge in Chamber impugned in this petition and find that entitlement of both the parties have thoroughly been scrutinized and determined and whatever extent of their entitlements were found, they have adjusted land in different khatas. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent Sardar had been allowed land in village Fateh Garh beyond the ceiling fixed under the law, for in the said village, land could not be allotted to any claimant beyond 10 acres whereas Sardar Ali had been allotted 93 kanals of land and the petitioners only 40 kanals. We have gone through the constitutional petition and the ground of the present civil petition and find that no express and specific ground was urged that according to the entitlement determined by the Settlement Commissioner, the petitioners still had unsatisfied units, therefore, so far as they are concerned, they could not maintain the writ petition since they had to disclose or allege before the Court their entitlement to make them aggrieved person before challenging the allotment of the respondents.