1987 PLP 695 (SCMR)

Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri and M.A. Qureshi, Advocates‑on‑Record for the Petitioners. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.l and

2. Date of hearing: 20th January, 1987. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J. ‑Leave to appeal has been sought in these three petitions from judgment dated 8‑2‑1986 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners three Constitutional Petitions arising out of a land settlement case, were dismissed. A statement of facts has been placed on record. It is not necessary to give the details of the four rounds of litigation coming up to the High Court. it would suffice to note that there was two pronged criticism against the allotment of urban and a rural land to the respondent‑side. One that the land claim had been exaggerated and was not correctly verified vis‑a‑vis the urban and rural area/units; and second, that double allotment had been obtained against the same claim/units. Writ Petition No.1163‑R of 1966 filed by the petitioner‑side was dismissed with observation to the effect that if as a result of the decision in another Writ Petition pending in the same High Court (W.P. No.831‑R of 1970) the entitlement is revised and reduced the petitioner‑side would then be benefited. The Writ Petition No.831‑R of 1970 was filed by the respondent‑side against a finding by the Central Record Office that the area of 406/4 Biggas was verified in excess of the entitlement as a result of which a revised Fard Haqiat was also issued. On the dismissal of respondents' writ petition, the petitioners again moved the Settlement Authorities to retain their temporary allotment of urban area against rural claim which stood allotted to the respondents against their urban claim, on the basis of the observations made by the High Court when dismissing the earliest Writ Petition No.1163‑R of 1966. On failure, the petitioners filed another Writ Petition in the High Court (No. 427‑R of 1983) which did not bear fruit. The petitioners nevertheless made further applications for so called implementation of the said observations of the High Court. A Deputy Commissioner exercising the powers of the Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 8‑4‑1984 examined the entitlement and allotment of the respondent‑side and came to the conclusion that neither there was any excess not double allotment. The petitioners then brought the matter for 'the fourth time before the High Court through Writ Petition No.342/R of 1984 which having been dismissed on the finding that it was barred by the principle of res judicata and also on confirmation of the facts found by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, the petitioners have now sought leave to appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the judgment in Writ Petition No.1163‑R of 1966 would not operate as res judicata because of the observations made therein with regard to the result in Writ Petition No.831‑R of 1970. Therefore, it is argued that the High Court was in error in applying the principle of res judicata. On the merits, it has been contended that although the Additional Settlement Commissioner in the order dated 8‑8‑1984 did not ignore the decision of the Central Record Office regarding the reduction of the entitlement of the respondent‑side yet it has been ignored that they had obtained allotment of rural land against urban claim. Therefore, they could not have obtained urban land against the same claim. We do not agree with the learned counsel. Even if it be assumed that the petitioners as a result of the observations made in the order of dismissal in Writ Petition No.1163‑R of 1966, could retain the urban land if the entitlement of the respondents was reduced, the fact remains that the urban land /units ultimately verified in respondents' claim is not at all in excess of the urban land allotted to them. In this context, therefore, the decision in Writ Petition No. 1163/11 of 1966 as also it‑. Writ Petition No. 427‑R of 1983 would operate as res judicata against the petitioners. Be that as it may, in the final and last round of litigation an Additional Settlement Commissioner examined the facts in detail and found that the urban land allotted to the respondent‑side was not in excess of their reduced entitlement nor was the allotment unjustified in any manner. The High Court has similarly observed that after examination, it has been found that the respondent‑side has not been given any urban area in excess of their entitlement vis‑a‑vis the urban claim. The concurrent findings of fact are neither illegal nor against any principle. That being so, we do not find it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. These petitions accordingly, are dismissed.