KH. MUHAMMAD NASIM, J.----The titled appeal by leave of the Court, has been directed against the judgment of the High Court dated 13.09.2018, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, herein, has been dismissed.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellant, herein, filed a writ petition before the High Court by alleging therein that he submitted an application to the Minister Industries for allotment of industrial land measuring 8 kanal, situated in Small Industries Estate, Mirpur , which was referred to the Director Industries, respondents No.3, herein. It was alleged that the appe llant was asked to appear before the allotment committee on 15.01.2018 and was told that the matter cannot be resolved by the Committee because the land in question is a commercial land, which can only be sold through auction. The appellant was informed through letter dated 15.03.2018 that the land in question cannot be allotted in his favour on the ground that the committee is not competent for the purpose.
In the writ petition, the appellant challenged the aforesaid order and sought a direct ion to the Committee to allot the plot to the petitioner , herein. The learned High Court after necessary proceedings through the impugned judgment has dismissed the writ petition being hit by the principle of res-judicata, hence this appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Sardar Muhammad Khurshid Khan, the learned Advocate, representing the appellant 'submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learne d High Court is against law and the record of the case, hence the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. He forcefully argued that the learned High Court- passed the impugned judgment on the ground that as earlier the writ petition of the appellant involving same propo sition was dismissed, hence the subsequent writ petition is not maintaina ble. He added that the conclusion drawn by the learned High Court is totally against the record, based on misconception of facts, non-application of judicial mind and lacking the proper appreciation of the record. He submitted that in the earlier writ petition, the appellant applied for the commercial land on ownership basis, however , after dismissal of the said writ petition and the appeal before this Court, the appellant applied for the industrial land on lease as provided in the relevant rules, hence, having different cause of action and the relief prayed for, the principle of res-judicata was not attracted in the case. The learned High Court failed to consider the contents of the writ petition and illegally dismissed the same while applying the principle of res-judicata. He requested for acceptance of appeal and setting aside the impugned judgment.
4. Conversely , Raja Saadat Ali Kiani, the learned Additional Advocate-Gen eral, representing the official respondents forcefully opposed the arguments addressed on behalf of the appella nt and submitted that earlier the appellant, herein, filed a writ petition for allotment of the commercial land measuring 8 kanal, which was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated 12.06.2013. The said judgment attained finality upto this Court. Thereafter , the appellant again filed the writ petition on the same subject matter , cause of action and against the same authorities, hence the principle of res-judicata is fully applicable in the case in hand. The learned High Court has committed no illegally while dismissing the writ petition on the point of res-judicata. He referred to the case reported as Sakhi Muhammad and others v. Mst. Safeeda Begum and others [2018 SCR 522] and requested for dismissal of the appeal.
5. We have heard the learned Advocate, representing, the appellant as well as the learned Additional Advocate- General and gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgm ent. The perusal of the record reveals that the appellant, herein, applied for, allotment of the industrial land, measuring 8 kanal, situated in Industrial Estate Mangla Road Mirpur for installing Food Industry . The matter was placed before the concerned Allotment Committee, however , the said Committee refused to make the allotment on the ground that the Committee has no power to allot the land in question and the appellant herein, was informed accordingly vide letter dated 15.03.2018. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellant, herein, approached the High Court by filing a writ petition.
After necessary proceedings the learned High Court through the impugned judgm ent dismissed the writ petition being hit by the principle of res-judicata. To ascertain the fact; whether res-judicata is applicable in the case in hand or not, we have gone through the cheque red history of the case. The record reveals that previously the appellant herein, applied for allotment of the same land on ownership basis. The concerned Minister sent a summary to the Prime Minister of the time, who also approved the proposed allotment, however , due to stay order issued by a Court the matter could not be finalized. According to the appellant, after vacation of the stay order from the Court, the official respondents refused to allot the land in question to the appellant, hence he approached the High Court by filing a writ petition bearing No.75/2012. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned High Court vide judgment dated 12.06.2013. Against the said judgment the appellant filed an appeal before this Court which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 24.1 1.2015, with the following observation:- "10. We are in agreement that the rules do not permit to allot the land through auction on the basis of ownership, therefore, we are intended to hold that all the proceedings in this regard are nullity in the eye of law which have no legal value. Mere recommendations of the Department of Industries and approval of the Prime Minister do not give legal cover to the act which has been done in sheer violation of law and rules. The Prime Minister and the President are not supposed to pass an order against the rules and law. The findings recorded by the learned High Court being quite in accordance with the statutory provisions cannot be disturbed which have been passed after due deliberation. It is settled principle of law that things required to be done in a prescribed manner must be done in that way and no deviation can be made for it."
The perusal of the record reveals that in the writ petition dismissed through the impugned judgment, the subject matter i.e. the allotment of the 8 kanal of industrial land is the same, the parties and the prayed relief are also the same. However , in the earlier writ petition the appellant sought the allotment on the basis of ownership, whereas in the instant case is seeking the allotment on lease without auction. Here it may be observed that when the subject matter and the parties are the same, mere change in the prayed relief, does not prevent the attraction of res- judicata. Even otherwise, Rule 33 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Industries Control and Establishments of Industrial Estates and Artisan Workshop Rules, 1980, does not provide any allotment on lease without auction.
There is nothing on record which might reflect that the industrial department published any proclamation for auction of the land in question. The same matter was involved in the previous round of litigation, therefore, the principle of res-judicata is fully applicable in the case in hand and the learned High Court has committed no illegality while dismissing the writ petition on the point of res-judicate.
For the above stated reasons, this appeal being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.