ABDUL HAMID vs GULAB KHAN AND 2 Other
This petition arises from a dispute regarding the proper demarcation of a room claimed by the petitioner as part of an evacuee house transferred to him under settlement laws, while the respondents maintained it formed part of their adjacently transferred house. The petitioner challenged the orders of the Settlement Authorities through a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed in limine, leading to the present petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question raised was whether the Settlement Authorities retained jurisdiction to demarcate the property and re-examine its transfer after the issuance of a permanent transfer deed. The Supreme Court held that interference was unwarranted where the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, upon a detailed spot inspection, found that the disputed room was unquestionably part of the respondent's house and had been recently blocked off to amalgamate it with the petitioner's property, a factual finding affirmed through appellate and revisional forums. The Court accordingly dismissed the petition, upholding the finality of the concurrent factual determinations.
- Whether Settlement Authorities have jurisdiction to demarcate property after the issuance of a permanent transfer deed?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities regarding property demarcation be interfered with under writ jurisdiction?
- Whether a property transfer under settlement laws can be re-opened in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation?
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ C. J.-This petition concerns a dispute regarding the proper demarcation of one room, which the petitioner claims to be part of the evacuee house transferred to him under the Settlement law. This house bears No. MY/38-53 and is situate in Ward No. 24/6 in Pindi Bhatian in the District of Gujranwala. The permanent transfer deed for this House was issued to the petitioner on 26-6-1963. The adjoining House bearing No. MY/38-51 was similarly transferred to respondent No. 1 Gulab Khan. After repeated proceedings before the Settlement Officers, the room in dispute has been held to be a part of the house transferred to the respondent.
2. The petitioner challenged the orders of the Settlement Authorities by filing a writ petition in the High Court, but the same has been dismissed in limine by a learned Judge of the High Court by his order dated the 9th of August, 1976. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal.
3. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel, Ch. Muhammad Sadiq, is that after the issuance of the permanent transfer deed on the 26th of June, 1963, in favour of the petitioner the property had ceased to be evacuee property, and, therefore, the Settlement Authorities had no jurisdiction to embark upon its demarcation. The learned counsel further submits that the question of the transfer of the property could not be re-opened unless there was fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, but there was no such allegation in the present case. In support of these submission the learned counsel has drawn our attention to Anwar Husain v. Sarfraz Ahmad (PLD 1971 SC 669 ), Muhammad Hussain v. Muhammad Bashir (P LD 1974 Lah. 446). And Syed Murid Hussain Shah v. Mufti Muhammad Yousaf Aliand another (1974SCMR8).
4. After hearing the learned counsel at some length, and examining the very detailed order made by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner after spot inspection, we are of the view that this is not at all a fit case for our interference. This officer found on the spot that the room in dispute was unquestionably a part of the evacuee house transferred to the respondent, and that the enterance leading to the room from the respondent's house had been recently blocked, so as to amalgamate the room with the house transferred to the petitioner. This finding of fact has not been disturbed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner in appeal or the Settlement Commissioner in revision. In these circumstances.
5. There does not seem to be any compelling justification for us to re-open the matter.
6. The petition, accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs Mst. NASIRAN And Another 1987 SCMR 999
- BARKAT ALI And Others vs MUHAMMAD DIN And OTHER 1986 CLC 2789
- BEGUM SHAMS-UN-NISA vs SAID AKBAR ABBASI AND ANOTHER 1982 PLD Supreme Court 413