ATTA MUHAMMAD and 8 others vs MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE! CHIEF
This constitutional petition concerns the enforcement of prior judicial directions regarding the allotment of land to satisfy the petitioners' outstanding claims, specifically 1800 Produce Index Units (PIUs). The core legal question was whether the respondents could refuse to allot land based on the repeal of Evacuee Laws, despite prior binding judicial orders requiring such settlement. The Lahore High Court held that the respondents were legally obligated to comply with the specific directions issued by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the High Court in previous inter partes litigation. The Court emphasized that a judgment in personam, which has attained finality, creates a binding obligation upon the parties that cannot be circumvented by relying on general precedents or the subsequent repeal of statutes. The key principle laid down is that administrative authorities cannot ignore or stultify the legal efficacy of a final, binding judicial order issued specifically between the parties, and they are constitutionally mandated under Article 190 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to give effect to such directions faithfully.
- Can administrative authorities refuse to implement a final judicial order by citing the repeal of relevant statutes?
- Is a judgment in personam binding upon the parties involved regardless of subsequent changes in law?
- What is the legal effect of a final Supreme Court direction regarding the settlement of land claims?
- Article 190, Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
' This case has a long drawn history and background of litigation which, however, need not be reiterated in view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 25-64995 passed in C.P.L.A. Nos.769 and 770/L of 1994 which elaborately contains the material aspects of the dispute. While dismissing the petition for leave, it was observed by their Lordships that "we reiterate the observation/direction contained in the impugned judgment to settle the pending claim/units of the petitioners on some other available land". In pursuance of the said direction, partial settlement of the claim of the petitioners was made, whereafter again they had to approach this Court by filing writ petitions. In Writ Petition No,4/R of 1999 it was directed that the Notified Officer will examine the availability of land and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after completing all the formalities. This was vide order dated 23-2-1999. The Member, Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner felt aggrieved of the above direction and filed petition for leave before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan which petition (C.P.L.A. No,1826/L of 1999) was dismissed by their Lordships on 31-10-2000 as barred by time. Thus, the observations made by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan while dismissing C.P.S.L.A. Nos.769 and 770/L of 1994, remained intact as also the latter direction of this Court dated 23-2-1999 made in Writ Petition No,4/R of 1999. It is in this context that the present petition has been filed with the prayer that the official respondents be directed to finalize the matter of allotment of land against their balance units.
2. It is stated by the learned counsel that 1800 PIUs of the petitioners remain unsatisfied. The learned counsel for the Department, however, contends that in view of Muhammad Ramzan and others v. Member (Revenue)/CSS and others 1997 SCM R 1635 and Ali Muhammad through Legal Heirs and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others 2001 SCM R 1822. No allotment can be ordered in view of the repeal of Evacuee Laws.
3. Suffice it to observe that the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan had made observation and direction on 25-6-1995 in clear terms for the settlement of the pending claim/units of the petitioners on some available land. Such an inter partes direction in a judgment in pursonam is binding upon the parties which the respondents are bound to obey and carry out. The binding nature of judgment/orders in pursonam, have been dealt with extensively by their Lordships in Pir Bukhsh represented by his Legal Heirs and others v. The Chairman, Allotment Committee and others PLD 1987 SC 145. The legal efficacy of such a judgment/order can neither be stultified nor ignored by the parties. It may further be observed that even the direction of this Court made in Writ Petition No,4/R of 1999 dated 23-2-1999 has become final with the dismissal of the petition for leave filed by the Department. Such judgments and directions inter se the parties cannot be ignored by invoking judgments and precedents rendered in other cases. The respondents are bound to comply with and give effect to the directions mentioned above faithfully, which they indeed are bound under Article 190 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
'As a result of the above, respondents are directed to implement the directions mentioned above and settle the claim/balance units on some available land. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. No, order as to costs.
Cited by 3 cases
- Hameed A. Haroon vs. Hussain A. Haroon & Others vs Yousuf A.Haroon & 2020 PLD Sindh 507, 2020 SHC 154
- BUKHTIAR AHMAD SHEIKH vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUUNAL and others 2017 PLC 58
- HAMEED A. HAROON vs YOUSUF A. HAROON and 10 others 2009 MLD 1259