HASSAN MUHAMMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other
This matter arises from a petition filed against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the High Court, which had upheld the transfer of a property divided into separate units by settlement authorities. The core legal question concerns the extent of the Settlement Authority's jurisdiction to divide a property into separate units and whether such division is amenable to interference under constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the settlement authorities possess the jurisdiction to divide a property, and the matter of division lies within their discretion, which ordinarily should not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that the division of property by settlement authorities is a matter of administrative discretion and will not be disturbed under Article 199 unless shown to be without lawful authority, particularly when the allocation is fair, just, and achieves rehabilitation of multiple parties.
- Does the Settlement Authority have the jurisdiction to divide a property into separate units?
- Should a High Court interfere with the division of property by settlement authorities in its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Is the division of property by settlement authorities subject to interference if it is substantially fair and just?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-This is a petition against an order dated 10-12-1974, whereby a constitutional petition bearing No. 1572-R/74, was dismissed by the High Court.
2. It is not necessary to go into the lengthy details of the stages through which the present case has passed, and it will be sufficient for the purpose of the present order to mention, that the petitioner has been transferred one room existing in property No. S-XX-5-S-58, Canal Park, Lahore. Two other rooms in the same property which have been treated as shops have been transferred to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 separately, by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, vide his order dated 31-1-1973 passed in pursuance of implementation of an order of the learned Settlement Commis--sioner, dated 19-7-1972, whereby he held that the aforesaid two rooms could be and should be treated as two separate shops. The High Court examined the matter during the course of the hearing of the constitutional petition above-mentioned and was of the view that the petitioner had not take any exception at the proper stage against the order of the Settlement Commis--sioner, dated 19-7-1972 aforesaid. They held that even otherwise the question of division was in the sole discretion of the settlement authorities and if they divided the property as above- mentioned, their orders cannot be held as to be without lawful authority.
3. Learned counsel has repeated the same plea before us, viz. That the whole of the property, viz. Three rooms should be transferred to him as one unit. The contention has no merit. The Settlement Authority had the jurisdiction to divide a property and it has repeatedly been held that matter of division ordinary should not be interfered with in its constitutional jurisdiction by a High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. The High Court in the instant case committed no mistake by acting on this principle.
4. Even otherwise on our part we feel the impugned orders of the settlement authorities are substantially fair and just inasmuch as they purport to rehabilitatethree persons and three families by giving one room to each of them and in this way have settled the petitioner particularly in the room which was in his possession and have rightly not given rest of the two rooms to him when they were in the possession of the others.
5. In our opinion this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- JALEES AHMED and 3 others vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary 2015 PLJ Lahore 128
- PAKCOM LIMITED and others vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others 2011 PLD Supreme Court 44
- Messrs ITTEHAD CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD. vs GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN 1997 CLC 562