SAEED AFIMAD KHAN AND Another vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition regarding the classification of a specific plot of land. The petitioners sought the transfer of land bearing Khasra No. 701, contending that it should be classified as agricultural land rather than a building site. The core legal question was whether the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities possessed the jurisdiction to determine the nature of the land and whether their classification of the property as a building site was subject to judicial interference. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The Court affirmed that Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities have the requisite jurisdiction to declare and treat land as a building site. Consequently, the Court ruled that an order issued by these authorities within their jurisdiction cannot be deemed to be without lawful authority, and the High Court's refusal to interfere with such a determination was legally sound and free from error.
- Do Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities have the jurisdiction to determine whether a piece of land is agricultural or a building site?
- Can a High Court interfere with a decision of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities regarding land classification if the authorities acted within their jurisdiction?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J. -The petitioners desired transfer of a small area bearing Khasra No. 701 as an agricultural land but having failed at the departmental levels he filed a constitutional petition being W. P. 736-R of 1975 but without any success as the same was dismissed by the High Court vide its order dated 23-7-1975. He has now come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
2. The only point argued was that nature of the land comprised in the aforesaid khasra number was agricultural whereas the Settlement and Reha--bilitation Authorities have declared and treated it as a building site. It is well settled that the aforesaid authorities had the jurisdiction to give such a declaration or decision. If this is so, then their order on the subject could' not be held to be without lawful authority and the order of the High Court to interfere with the same in the circumstances cannot be called to be erroneous in any manner.
3. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed hereby.