SHER MUHAMMAD AND Another vs MUNIR AHMAD AND 2 Other
This matter concerned a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld an order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The dispute arose over an evacuee plot adjacent to a house transferred to the petitioners. The plot was claimed by another party who served a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The petitioners approached the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for clarification, who determined the plot was separate from their house and they were in illegal possession. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had jurisdiction to pass this order, rendering it a nullity. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that since the petitioners themselves had invoked the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's jurisdiction, they could not subsequently challenge it. The Court found no fault with the High Court's decision not to exercise its writ jurisdiction, concluding that substantial justice had been done.
- Can a party who has invoked the jurisdiction of an authority later challenge that authority's jurisdiction?
- Is a High Court justified in refusing to exercise writ jurisdiction in favour of petitioners who themselves invoked the jurisdiction of the authority they are challenging?
- Does a Deputy Settlement Commissioner have jurisdiction to clarify the status of an evacuee plot claimed to be part of a transferred evacuee house?
- Section 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
ORDER
1. QAISAR KHAN, J.-Evacuee House No. AA/1385 situated in Mohallah Akalgarh, Rawalpindi was transferred jointly to Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Saddiq. Final Transfer Order was issued on 13-9-76. Close to this house was an evacuee plot. This plot was included in the auction list in 1962 and it was purchased in auction by one Munir Ahmad who later on surrendered his right in favour of Mst. Sharifan Begum. The plot was in occupation of Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Saddiq.
2. Mst. Sharifan Begum therefore served them with a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Saddiq claiming the plot to be a part of their house approached the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for clarification. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 16-6-77 held that the plot which measured 4 marlas, 2 sarsais was a separate plot belonging to Teja Singh while house measuring 1152 sq. Ft. Was a separate property belonging to one Gokal Chand and that Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Saddiq after obtaining transfer of the house had taken illegal possession of the plot.
3. Sher Muhammad and Muhammad Sadiq questioned the aforesaid order of the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner by a writ petition in the High Court but their writ petition was dismissed on 6-8-1977. They have thus filed this petition for special leave to appeal against the order of the High Court.
4. The only contention raised by Mr. Samad Mahmood, Advocate for the petitioner was that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdic--tion to pass the order dated 16-6-1977 and that the order was therefore a nullity. For this he placed reliance on the authority reported in PLD 1964 S C 129. This authority, however, does not help him for he himself had invoked the jurisdiction of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the High Court was justified in not exercising its writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners. No fault could be found with the order of the High Court and since substantial justice has been done this petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Cited by 4 cases
- ALLAH BUX through Legal Heirs vs GHULAM HUSSAIN and 4 others 2001 YLR 1039
- HIMATH ALI and otherss vs MUHAMMAD PARYAL and others 2000 PLD Karachi 203
- Chaudhry HAQ NAWAZ CHOHAN vs Chaudhry TARIQ AZAM And 43 OTHER 1994 CLC 1530
- UNITED BANK LTD., LAHORE vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB AND 2 Other 1982 PLD Lahore 384