SHABBIR HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND 2 Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Shabbir Hussain against Muhammad Afzal and others, challenging an order of the High Court. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court erred by deciding a disputed question of fact regarding prior allotment and possession of premises instead of remanding the matter to the departmental settlement authorities. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that questions of fact regarding prior allotment or possession should properly be adjudicated by the settlement authorities rather than the High Court directly. The Court laid down the principle that factual disputes in settlement matters ought to be remanded for departmental re-decision rather than determined by the High Court in the first instance. Interim protection against ejectment was granted subject to furnishing security.
- Whether the High Court can adjudicate upon a disputed question of fact regarding prior allotment or possession instead of remanding the case to departmental authorities?
- Should questions of fact concerning property possession in settlement matters be decided by the High Court or left to the Settlement Authorities?
ORDER
1. S. A. RAHMAN, J.-In this case, on behalf of Shabbir Hussain, the petitioner, it is urged by Mr. Abdul Majid Khan that the High Court had set' aside the order passed in Review the Settlement Commissioner, on a point of fact on which, if it was necessary to obtain a finding, the case should have been remanded to the Departmental authorities for re-decision. The question in dispute between the parties was, as to whether the petitioner, or the respondent, was a prior allotted, or in prior possession of the premises, in question. This was certainly a question of fact and there is a good deal of force in the contention raised that such a question should not have been adjudicated upon by the High Court: but should have been left to be decided by the Settlement Authorities.
2. Leave to appeal is granted as prayed. The petitioner will furnish security for costs in the sum of Rs.
3. 1,000 prior to the appeal being heard. In the meantime the petitioner shall not be ejected from the premises.