IRSHAD AHMAD vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other
This civil petition for special leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the allotment of land comprising Khasra No. 892 situated in Kamonki. The petitioner claimed an earlier allotment dated 21-4-1962, whereas respondent No. 3 was allotted the same land on 27-4-1965 based on a Patwari report. The core legal question involved the factual determinations of whether the petitioner was a genuine allottee and whether the revenue record had been interpolated or forged in his favour. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Settlement Commissioner regarding the interpolation of the revenue record and the lack of a valid prior allotment must be accepted as correct and cannot be interfered with in leave proceedings. The Court further held that a previous litigation which proceeded on an unagitated assumption of the petitioner's status could not alter the binding factual findings. The petition was consequently dismissed.
- Can findings of fact regarding the interpolation of revenue records be interfered with by the Supreme Court in leave to appeal proceedings?
- Does an unagitated assumption in a previous writ petition regarding land allotment status affect subsequent proceedings on distinct factual issues?
- Are concurrent factual determinations by a Settlement Commissioner binding upon superior courts?
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-On 21-4-1962 land comprising Khasra No. 892 situated in Kamonki was allotted to the petitioner. Ijaz Ahmad filed an appeal against this allotment. This appeal was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 22-11-1965 and a revision petition met the same fate at the bands of the Settlement Commissioner on 31-10-1969. A Writ Petition No. 1205/R- 69 was consequently filed in the High Court which was dismissed on 18-3-1972.
2. Meanwhile on 27-4-1965 on a report by the Patwari that the land was available, this Khasra number was allotted to respondent No. 3. The petitioner claims that he was not aware of, it and, therefore, it was only on the 30th of May, 1974 that be filed an appeal against it which was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner consequently filed a Writ Petition No. 54- R/75 which was dismissed by the Lahore High Court on 29-1-1975. Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal.
3. The Settlement Commissioner was of the view that in the Register Haqdaran for the year 1964-65 should have been shown the allot--ment in favour of the petitioner, if any had been made on 21-4- 196 as claimed by him. He was of the opinion that the revenue record has been interpolated for the purpose of showing that the petitioner was an allottee. These two are questions of fact on which the Settlement Commissioner's decision has to be accepted by this Court as correct and they cannot be used for passing an order interfering with the findings.
4. It was submitted that in a previous litigation the matter had gone upto the Lahore High Court and all along the assumption had been that the petitioner was an allottee of the land. Suffice it to say that the questions whether the petitioner was or was not an allottee of the land or whether a forgery had been committed in the revenue record for his benefit were never agitated in that writ petition. The decision in that writ petition could, therefore, not alter the fate of the appeal, which was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 30-5-1974 or of the writ petition which was dismissed on 29-1-1975.
5. This petition has, therefore, no legs to stand upon and is, therefore, dismissed.