MUHAMMAD BAKHSH vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)
The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court, which dismissed his application for the transfer of an urban property under Scheme No. 9 framed under the settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the concurrent factual finding regarding the petitioner's lack of possession of the disputed land warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The court held that the question of possession is essentially a finding of fact, which was arrived at after considering relevant material and did not suffer from any misreading, omission of evidence, or violation of any principle of law in the appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact on the question of possession by settlement authorities and lower courts will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court unless vitiated by misreading, non-consideration of evidence, or legal error in appreciation.
- Whether a finding of fact regarding possession by lower courts warrants interference in a petition for special leave to appeal?
- Does the appreciation of evidence by settlement authorities give rise to a substantial question of law when based on relevant material?
- Is a petitioner eligible for the transfer of urban property under settlement schemes without proving actual possession?
ORDER
' KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The dispute in this case is about a portion of land bearing Khasra No, 4386, situated in, Ward No, 10, Multan, described more fully in the order of the Courts below. The petitioner filed a form/application for the transfer of that plot under what is described generally as Scheme No, 9, which was prepared for "Management and disposal of available urban property" under the settlement laws. The form/ application of the petitioner was rejected by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 24-10-1978, who held the petitioner was not in possession of the aforesaid plot therefore he was not eligible for its transfer. On the other hand he held that the portion of plot in dispute was in actual possession of Wahid Bakhsh. The petitioner filed an appeal but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Commissioner Revenue on 6-10-1979.
2. The petitioner has come up in a' petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
3. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the finding of the Courts below that the petitioner was not in possession of the disputed portion of the land is erroneous. The contention! Has no merit. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner Revenue and the High Court after considering. All the relevant material have found that the petitioner is not 1 in possession of the disputed land. This is essentially a finding of fact which has not been shown to us to suffer from any misreading or omission of evidence. The case does not involve violation of any principle of law in the appreciation of evidence and is not fit for grant of leave to appeal.