Syed TUFAIL AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition relating to the final disposal of land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act and the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The petitioner claimed to be the sister's son of a deceased property owner, alleging that his land settlement claim was fraudulently diverted and that respondents were unlawfully granted inheritance mutations. The core legal question concerned whether the concurrent factual findings regarding the heirship and relationship of the respondents to the deceased could be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised pertained entirely to the appreciation of evidence and factual controversies settled by concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities, warranting no interference. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower settlement authorities be interfered with in a constitutional petition?
- Whether questions relating to the appreciation of evidence can form the basis for interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does an allegation of fraud regarding the transfer of a land claim warrant interference when based on disputed questions of fact?
- Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act
1. MUHAMMAD AFLAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 29th of October 1974, where-- by a Constitutional petition arising out of a case relating to final disposal of land under the Displaced Parsons (Land Settlement) Act and the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme; was dismissed.
2. According to the facts stated by the learned counsel. Syed Tufail Ahmad petitioner, claiming to be sister's son of Mst. Sakina- begum widow of Mahmood Ali filed a land settlement claim regarding - 'the land belonging to said Mst. Sakina Begum who it is stated died in-1949/50. This claim was filed for settlement in District Sargodha. Respondents Nos. 5 to 21 filed different claims .For land stated to have been abandoned by Asghar Ali, their predecessor-in-interest in Multan District. Learned counsel asserted that their claims were rejected and instead petitioner's claim/Farde -Haqiat was through fraud diverted to District Multan where mutation of inheritance of Mst. Sakina Begum was sanctioned in respondents' favour. The petitioner was totally -excluded. On coming to know of the mutation he filed an appeal which 'was dismissed. His revision petition met the same fate.
3. Therefore, he challenged the orders of the Land Settlement Authorities through a writ petition which also having been dismissed he has sought leave to appeal.
4. It cannot be denied that the question of fact as to whether the res--pondents are heirs of Mst.
5. Sakina Begum has throughout been decided against the petitioner. Notwithstanding this aspect of the matter, learned counsel has tried to show that the said findings suffered from serious.
6. Infirmities. He contended that no claim was submitted from the res--pondent's side for the land of Mst. Sakina Begum, therefore, they were not at all related to her ; that at the time of mutation proceedings with regard to the inheritance of Asghar Ali, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, the latter had. Made statement to the effect that apart from them there was no other relation or heir of Asghar Ali who could inherit his property and thus they excluded Mst. Salons Begum as being heir of Asghar Ali and if that were so they could not inherit from heron the assumption that she was daughter of Asghar Ali-the argument being that they were legally estopped from taking a position contrary to that taken in the aforementioned mutation proceedings ; and lastly that the claim/Farde Haqiat of the petitioner having been surreptitiously and fraudulently sent to District Multan, on account of alleged fraud committed by the respondents, they could not reap the benefit thereof. .
7. All the contentions raised by the learned counsel relate to apprecia--tion of evidence and the conclusions reached by the concerned Authori--ties in regard to the factual, controversy as to whether Mst. Sakina, Begum was or was- not the daughter of Asghar Ali. The same havin been concluded by the concurrent findings of fact, we see no justification for interference. This petition is accordingly dismissed.