2004 PLP 960 (MLD)

This petition for leave to appeal has been filed to challenge the order passed by the High Court on 8‑10‑2002, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition for leave to appeal are that the land measuring 39 Kanals 13 Marlas, situate in village Saila, Tehsil Sehnsa, was allotted in petitioners name,‑vide order of allotment dated 29‑6‑1986. The proprietary rights were also granted in favour of the petitioners. The aforesaid proprietary rights were later on set aside by the Custodian on the ground that the land stood allotted in the name of Muhammad Ibahim on 5‑8‑1971. Thereafter the proprietary rights were also granted in favour of the respondent. The petitioner submitted a review petition before the Custodian which was dismissed. The aforesaid order of allotment, the order of granting proprietary rights and the order passed by the Custodian were challenged before the High Court through a writ petition which was dismissed. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.

3. Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, maintained that the allotment was illegally made in the name of the respondents which was in excess of the scale prescribed for it. It was also argued by him that the respondents were not entitled to the allotment as they did not constitute the head of their families therefore, the allotment in their names was illegal. It was further argued that in the previous round of litigation the, petitioners were not aware of the full facts as such could not place on record.

4. Kh. Muhammad Nasim, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3, while controverting the arguments addressed on behalf of the petitioners, argued that the petitioners had not locus standi to agitate the matter through writ petition. The learned counsel contended that actual facts are that the land in dispute was earlier allotted in favour of non‑petitioners in the year 1971. The petitioners herein challenged the aforesaid allotment on the ground that the land was non‑evacuee. The aforesaid cause was dismissed. The petitioners however, manoeuvred to get the allotment of disputed land in their favour without its cancellation from the name of non‑petitioners. The non‑petitioners moved before the Custodian for the cancellation of illegal allotment in favour of the petitioners which was accepted and the allotment was cancelled. The petitioners filed a writ petition before the High Court which was also dismissed and a further appeal before the Supreme Court also met the same fate. Subsequently, the petitioners started the third round of litigation by challenging the allotment existing in the name of non‑petitioners before the Custodian through a review petition which was dismissed. A writ petition challenging the aforesaid order was also dismissed. The order is challenged through this petition for leave to appeal. It was forcefully argued that the petitioners have no case on merits and they are dragging the non‑petitioners.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. It is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the earlier round of litigation the petitioners were unsuccessful before the Custodian while challenging the allotment and also failed to succeed before the High Court and finally before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The order passed by the Supreme Court attained finality, therefore, the petitioners could not re -agitate the matter through another review petition before the Custodian as such the petition for leave to appeal is found to have no substance in it particularly in the circumstances when in previous two rounds of litigation they remained unsuccessful. It may also be mentioned that the respondents were allotted land in the year 1971. They were also conferred the proprietary rights. No illegality is found in the order of allotment existing in the name of respondents. Therefore, the petition for leave to appeal has been found to have no substance in it and is dismissed. As the petition for leave to appeal has been dismissed, therefore, the application for grant of stay order also stands dismissed. H.B.T./32/SC(AJ&K) Petition dismissed.