MUMTAZ AHMAD KHAN and others vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a civil revision and maintaining concurrent findings of the lower courts, which had dismissed the petitioners' declaratory suit concerning land allotted under a Tubewell Scheme by the Thal Development Authority. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in dismissing the subsequent suit without considering a prior remand order and whether the petitioners were entitled to restoration of the cancelled allotment despite having withdrawn their advance money and failing to pay installments following the resumption of the land in 1959. The Supreme Court held that the petition was without merit, noting that the petitioners had filed a fresh suit instead of pursuing the remand order, had withdrawn their advance money, and had failed to pay installments. The court laid down the principle that a party cannot bypass a remand order by filing a fresh suit and subsequently claim prejudice, and that concurrent findings of fact supported by cogent reasons regarding non-payment and withdrawal of deposits will not be interfered with in leave to appeal.
- Whether a party can file a fresh suit instead of pursuing proceedings on the basis of a previous remand order?
- Does the withdrawal of advance money and failure to pay installments justify the resumption and cancellation of land allotted under a Tubewell Scheme?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts when no legal infirmity is pointed out in the impugned orders?
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 12-6-2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No,786 of 2001 filed by the petitioners was dismissed maintaining the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
2. ' The brief facts are that the petitioners predecessor-in-interest secured land under Lot No,185 measuring 1200 Kanals situated in Rakh Dhingana, Tehsil Mankera, District Bhakkar, under Tubewell Scheme introduced by the Thal Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority).
3. The Authority cancelled the allotment of the above land and resumed the same. The petitioner filed a declaratory suit on 10-4-1991 seeking restoration of his allotment. This plea was contested by the respondents, Issues were framed and the learned Civil Judge through his judgment, dated 29-10- 1995 dismissed the suit. The petitioners filed an appeal assailing the above judgment, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar, vide his judgment, dated 25-1-2001.
4. The petitioners thereafter preferred Civil revision No,786 of 2001 before the Lahore High Court, which too met the same fate as it has been dismissed in limine vide order, dated 12-5-2001. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
5. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that earlier the petitioner's predecessor-in- interest challenged the cancellation of his allotment through a civil suit in the year 1972, which was dismissed on 21-9-1975. Appeal against the same also met the same fate vide judgment, dated 17- 11-1975. However, R.S.A. No,123 of 1976 filed by the petitioners predecessor-in-interest was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through his judgment, dated 17-2-1987 holding that the Civil Court had got the jurisdiction. The case was, accordingly, remanded to the trial Court for its disposal of merits. On this basis, it is argued by the learned counsel that the subsequent suit filed by the successors-in-interest has been dismissed without taking into consideration the remand order.
6. ' We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the entire material brought on record with his assistance. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the petitioners instead of following the remand order filed a fresh suit on 10-4-1991. The said suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on merits vide its judgment, dated 29-10-1995 and the appeal and civil revision met the same fate. None of the forums below has non-suited the petitioner on the question of jurisdiction. This being the position, the learned counsel's argument in this respect is totally devoid of any force. Apart from this, it is reflected from the impugned order that the petitioners after the resumption of land withdrew the advance money deposited by them with the Authority. They have not paid any instalment. The resumption order was passed as far back as in the year 1959. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has given cogent reasons for maintaining the concurrent findings of the Courts below. Learned counsel has not pointed out any legal infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court.
7. ' Resultantly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the instant petition being without any merit is dismissed and leave refused.