SHAMAS UD DIN vs SETTLEMENT AUTHORITIES THROUGH CHIEF SETTLEMENT
This matter concerns a dispute over the entitlement to land transfer based on the filing of a specific claim form (Form No. 9373). The High Court had previously remanded the case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner with a specific direction to determine the true filer of the form and transfer the land accordingly. Upon remand, the Chief Settlement Commissioner determined that the respondent (Nizam Din) had filed the form but proceeded to transfer the land to the petitioner (Shamas-ud-Din) based on extraneous considerations. The High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, set aside this transfer, holding that the Commissioner was bound by the earlier remand order. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that factual findings by the Settlement Commissioner are binding and that the Commissioner is legally obligated to strictly comply with remand directions. The Court held that the High Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction under Article 199 to quash an order that violated its previous mandate, as there was no misreading of evidence or legal error.
- Is a factual finding made by a Chief Settlement Commissioner binding on the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does a subordinate authority have the discretion to deviate from the specific directions contained in a High Court remand order?
- Can the High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to quash an order of a Settlement Commissioner that violates a previous remand direction?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER.
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.--The dispute in this case is as to who among the petitioner (Shames- ud-Din) and Nizam Din (now-represented by his legal heirs Muhammad. Ismail and Muhammad Sharif) (respon--dents 2 and 3 herein) filed a form bearing No. 9373. The case of the petitioner Shames-ud-Din was that the aforesaid Form was filed by him whereas the case of Nizam Din (deceased) was that it was he who had filed that Form. The High Court by its order dated 12th February, 1973 passed in Settlement Revision. No. 35 of 1964 remanded the case to the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner for determining as to who had filed that Form with a further direction that the land should be trans--ferred to or settled upon the party who had filed that Form.
After remand the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner found that the Form had been filed by Nizam Din but instead of the following the High Court's direction and transferring the land to the aforesaid claimant, he transferred it to Shames-ud-Din on certain other extraneous considera-- tions which strictly speaking did not fall within limited scope of the remand order of the High Court.
2. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order respondents 2 and 3 filed a constitutional petition being W. P.
11-R/714 which brought fruit and was accepted by the High Court by its judgment dated 20th December, 1-974. The High Court took the view that after having found that the aforesaid claim Form had been filed by Nizam Din, the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner acted without lawful authority in not transferring the land to him in violation of the earlier direction of the High Court.
3. Shamas-ud-Din has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to his Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the High Court erred in acting upon the finding of the learned Chief' Settlement Com--missioner that Form No. 9303 had been filed by Nizam Din which finding according to the learned counsel was not correct. The contention has no merit. As laid down by this Court in Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikander and others (P- L D 1974 SC 139) a factual finding of such nature was binding on the High Court and for this reason it rightly proceeded to examine the case further in the light of the aforesaid finding. In that way the High Court was then justified to hold that after giving the afore--said finding the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner could not have Violated the earlier order of the High Court by transferring the land to the present petitioner Shames-ud-Din. At this juncture learned counsel tried to argue that the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner had not given any finding that the aforesaid Form was filed by Nizam Din. We went through the record and it transpired that the submission of the learned counsel was based on an incomplete copy contained in his paper book and when we examined the attested copy contained in the main file of the ease in the Registry, we noticed that the High Court has correctly noticed that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had in fact found and held that the Form had been filed by Nizam Din. Since the later order of Chief Settlement Commissioner was nothing but just an implementation of the earlier order of the High Court dated 12th February, 1973, therefore, the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner had no option but to strictly comply with the same and if he tried to bypass it on certain extraneous considerations, the High Court was justified in quashing the same in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The case is concluded by a finding of fact and as there is neither any omission nor misreading of evidence nor violation of any principle of law relevant to the subject in hand there does not exist any ground for interference by this Court.
5. The results s that this petition has no merits and is dismissed.