CHIRAGH DIN vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND Other
This matter arises from a dispute concerning the transfer of a residential property under settlement laws, where the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the house to the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 as a claimant displaced person in possession, while dismissing the petitioner's claim due to a lack of valid allotment and prior possession. The core legal question involves whether the petitioner established entitlement to the property through valid documentary evidence of prior possession and allotment. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to produce competent documentary evidence to substantiate his claim of prior possession, and the fresh documents relied upon did not support his assertion. The ratio decidendi is that factual claims of prior possession and allotment in settlement proceedings must be substantiated by reliable documentary evidence, failing which concurrent findings of revenue and settlement authorities will not be disturbed. The court dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal in limine.
- Whether an allottee claiming property transfer must establish prior possession through reliable documentary evidence?
- Can fresh documents produced for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction be relied upon without proper proof?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of settlement authorities regarding the lack of proof of possession?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-Dispute in this case relates to the transfer of House No. 37-S-7, Dharampura, Lahore. The Deputy Settlement Commis--sioner transferred it to Haji Khair Din, predecessor-in-interest of respon--dents Nos. 2 to 5, on the ground that he was a claimant displaced person and an allottee and in possession, whereas the petitioner was not an allottee.
2. Petitioner's appeal and revision against this order were dismissed but Writ Petition No. 1892-R/1963 filed by him in the former High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore was accepted and the house was ordered to be transferred to him. However, on Letters Patent Appeal filed by Haji Khair Din a Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and remanded the case to the Settlement Commissioner for fresh dis--posal for the reason that the learned Single Judge had wrongly permitted the petitioner to produce certain fresh documents for the first time in the High Court and since those documents were allegedly not genuine needed to be proved in the regular manner before they could be considered and acted upon.
3. On remand the Settlement Commissioner rejected petitioner's claim for the reason that no documentary evidence had been produced by him to establish that, he was in prior possession of the house. Petitioner's challenge to the order of the Settlement Commissioner in Writ Petition No. 480-8 of 1971 in Lahore High Court also failed, and he now seeks Special Leave to appeal.
4. Ch. Muhammad Anwar Buttar learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is an allottee in prior possession from the date mentioned as 24th December, 1947 in the order of allotment issued to him, and this is conclusive proof of the claim set up by him, which should not have been ignored.
5. We are not impressed for reason that the High Court has rightly held that no documentary evidence had been produced by the petitioner in support, of his assertion that he was an allottee in prior possession of the house, and even the fresh document which was produced by the petitioner for the first time again in the High Court did not support his claim, on the contrary disproved it.
6. This petition, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed in limine.