MUHAMMAD TUFAIL AFTAB AND Another vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER
This matter arises from a leave petition filed against the order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging concurrent findings of fact by the settlement authorities. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding property demarcation rendered by the Settlement Department in its constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and maintained in appeal and revision—holding that the disputed basement forms part of the adjoining house rather than the petitioners' transferred house—were unexceptionable and not open to question within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. The court laid down the principle that findings of fact determined by departmental authorities through concurrent decisions cannot be varied or re-examined by the High Court under its constitutional writ jurisdiction.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the Settlement Department in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does a basement form part of a transferred property when departmental authorities concurrently find it belongs to an adjoining house?
ORDER
1. FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAMM, J.-The facts giving rise to this leave petition are that the petitioners are transferees of House No. BE. IV. 41-S-12, and the controversy between the parties is whether or not the basement in occupation of respondents 2 to 4, the successor-in-interest of one Muhammad Tufail, forms part of this house. The finding of fact arrived at by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, vide order dated 18-5-1966, which was maintained in departmental appeal as well as revision is that the basement forms part of the adjoining house bearing No. SE. IV 41-S-10. This finding was sought to be challenged in a writ petition filed by the petitioners in the High Court Lahore but a learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the finding was unexceptionable and it was, even otherwise, not open to question in Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
2. Mr. Bajwa, the learned counsel for the petitioners, was once again a pains to point out that the basement formed part and parcel of the house transferred to the petitioners. As aforesaid not less than three officers o the Settlement Department have found the basement to be part of the adjoining house No. SE. IV 41-S-10. In the circumstances the High Court had no jurisdiction to vary this finding of fact and the petition was, therefore, rightly dismissed.
3. There is no merit in this petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed.