1988 PLP 1685 (SCMR)

Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch.Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing; 5th July, 1988. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑One Abdus Sattar obtained allotment of agricultural land in four villages in excess of his entitlement. Subsequently, he transferred part of the land to respondents Nos.3 to 18 or their predecessors‑in‑interest. The matter of excess allotment was brought to the notice of a Naib‑Tehsildar of the inspection team who on 21‑7‑1970 directed the local Patwari to hold an enquiry. It is not clear from the record before us as to how these proceedings concluded. However that may be, on 24‑10‑1973 the petitioner laid information before the Settlement authorities under section 10/11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement and Rehabilitation) Act, with regard to the very same excess allotment. In the proceedings initiated on his information the excess allotment of Abdus Sattar was cancelled and a direction was given that the land becoming so available should be given to the petitioner as informant. Respondents Nos.4 to 18 filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of cancellation (See W.P. No.572‑R of 1976). The petition was dismissed in default as on the date fixed for its hearing neither they nor their counsel was present in Court. The respondents filed an application for restoration of the writ petition. However, when the petition came up for hearing, they did not press it. It was dismissed with the following observation: "The learned counsel has gone through the comments and states that as he cannot defend the case of the petitioners' double allotment, there is no case on merits. He however, states that as they might have the right to purchase the property or to defend their possession, they may be permitted to contest the same under the law. The application for restoration, therefore, stands dismissed." It does not appear from the record if the respondents in fact approached the authorities concerned for the purchase of the land. However, that may be, when the order for cancellation was given effect, they filed another writ petition challenging the same order. A learned Single Judge did not interfere with the order of cancellation but set aside the direction with regard to the allotment of the land in favour of the petitioner on the ground that he did not possess the status of an informant as the department had already initiated proceedings for cancellation of the allotment of Abdus Sattar. He also held that the respondents were entitled to purchase the land available after cancellation of the allotment of Abdul Sattar. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge.

2. In support of this petition it is contended that after the respondents' writ petition and the application for restoration had been dismissed, it was not open to them to file another writ petition challenging in substance the same order. This contention require examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.5,

000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any, within two months. Status quo order made on 28‑9‑1981 to continue in the same terms. M.I./M‑518/S Leave granted.