SAEED AHMAD KHAN AND Another vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld the decisions of the departmental authorities. The core legal question addressed is whether the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities possess the jurisdiction to declare and treat a particular piece of land, specifically Khasra No. 701, as a building site rather than agricultural land. The Supreme Court held that the authorities indeed have the jurisdiction to determine the nature of the land, and consequently, their decision cannot be termed as being without lawful authority, rendering the High Court's refusal to interfere unexceptionable. The key principle laid down is that factual determinations regarding the classification of land by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities fall within their competent jurisdiction and are not liable to constitutional interference unless shown to be without lawful authority.
- Whether the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities have the jurisdiction to declare land as a building site instead of agricultural land?
- Can the High Court interfere under constitutional jurisdiction with a factual determination made by the Settlement Authorities regarding the nature of land?
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The petitioners desired transfer of g 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---/75 but without any success as the same was dismissed by the High Court, vide its order dated 23rd July, 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 Rehabilitation 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.