1987 PLP 172 (SCMR)

Date of hearing: 26th October, 1986. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 5‑6‑1975 of the Lahore High Court; whereby two writ petitions arising out of land settlement matters, were disposed of‑‑one Writ Petition namely No. 167 R of 1968 was allowed while the other, namely, 98‑R of 1968 was dismissed. This petition for leave to appeal relates to the decision in Writ Petition No. 98‑R of 1968. In view of the order we propose to pass in this matter it is not necessary to give the facts and circumstances on account of which the filing of writ petition was necessitated. We have noticed from the impugned judgment that the learned Judge in the High Court who "disposed of" the writ petition felt handicapped in rendering a self‑contained decision on account of "the absence of the relevant record" which had made it impossible for that High Court "to find out as to how many of the petitioners (before the High Court) submitted their claims in lieu of their abandoned lands in the village and whose claims were duly verified". It was for this reason that the following view was taken of the case: "But it is difficult for me to hold in clear terms as to who amongst the petitioners did not submit his claim. Therefore, it will be for the authorities concerned to give finding in this regard after perusing the relevant record as well hearing the parties concerned." And it was obviously for these reasons that the learned Judge instead of dismissing the petition ordered that it shall be deemed to have been simply 'disposed of in the terms stated above'. Thus, read the impugned judgment cannot be treated as final disposal of the writ petition on merits. One of the rounds taken in the petition is that similar questions, as raised in this case, were involved in some Letters Patent Appeals which were pending in the High Court when the impugned judgment was rendered and further that one L.P.A. was pending as a result of a remand order passed by this Court with the direction that the said case be heard with other similar L.P.As (Yousaf Khan and 10 others v. Chairman, Border Area Committee, Narowal, District Sialkot and 6 others 1971 SCMR 505 the point urged was that the learned Single Judge "erred in deciding the writ petition separately". Learned counsel stated that although the L.P.As. mentioned above were once dismissed for non‑prosecution they have since been restored to regular hearing and are again pending in the High Court. This aspect of the matter was noticed in the order of this Court in these proceedings passed on 9‑10‑1983 wherein request was made to the High Court to dispose of the matter pending in the High Court so that this matter which indeed is an old one, could be heard and disposed of by this Court. As stated by the learned counsel the similar matters are still pending in the High Court and, in view of what has been stated above, the subject‑matter of the writ petition in this case was not decided on merits. Therefore, we consider it proper not to keep it pending and dispose it of with the observation that if so advised a fresh petition supported by the relevant records, the absence of which was noticed by the High Court, may be filed in the High Court with a prayer that the same should be heard alongwith similar matters pending in that Court. When the matter again comes before the High Court on a fresh petition it will be open to the petitioners to urge all legal and the factual pleas. With these observations this petition is disposed of. M. I. Order accordingly.