ABDUL MAJID vs MAHMOOD AHMAD QURESHI AND Other
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed his constitutional petition regarding the transfer of a small plot of land. The petitioner claimed entitlement to the plot under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, alleging he had raised construction on the property. However, the Settlement authority rejected his claim, finding that at the time of transfer to the respondent, the petitioner was neither in possession of the property nor had he raised any construction. The High Court upheld this decision, declining to interfere with the Settlement authority's findings of fact. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner attempted to re-argue these factual findings by referencing subordinate reports and receipts. The Supreme Court held that it could not engage in the reappraisal of factual findings already determined by the competent tribunal, especially where the High Court had correctly declined to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court affirmed that it would not disturb findings of fact based on spot inspections and the historical record of the case. Leave to appeal was refused.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact recorded by a settlement authority in a constitutional petition?
- Is the High Court empowered to reappraise evidence regarding possession and construction in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the underlying dispute rests solely on factual findings made by a competent tribunal?
- Settlement Scheme No. VIII
ORDER
1. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-The petitioner who has been unsuccessful in obtaining the transfer of a small plot of 2 marlas, seeks -leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 19- 12-1981 whereby a constitutional petition filed by him was dismissed.
2. The petitioner claimed to be in occupation of Khasras Nos. 3540 and 3541 measuring 2 marlas and 148 feet inside Bhati Gate, Lahore. He claimed to have applied for its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII in 1971, on the ground that he had raised construction on it. His Form, and application for transfer was not considered and instead the plot was transferred to' respondent No. 2 on 23-4-1980. The petitioner pressed for the disposal of his claim on which an inquiry was held and it was found that the petitionervarious reasons was not entitled to the transfer and his claim was rejected. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his claim to the property by a constitutional petition but the same was dismissed on the ground that there way a finding of fact recorded by the Settlement authority holding that at the time when the transfer was made in favour of respondent No. 21, the petitioner was neither in possession of the property nor had raised the construction.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to establish before us by reference to the reports of the various subordinates in the Settlement Department that the fact which was made the basis for decision was itself wrongly decided and the petitioner was, in fact, in possession from a much earlier date and had also proved having raised construction on it. The learned counsel pressed into service for establishing this the report of the settlement Patwari and the receipt for the purchases of building material.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we have come to the conclusion that the decisions of the settlement authority as well as of the High Court proceed on certain findings of fact and unless those findings of fact are reversed it is not possible to hold the petitioner entitled to the relief he is seeking. The tribunal entrusted with the duty of exploring, examining and deciding questions of fact having done so and the High Court finding its hands tied in constitutional jurisdiction interfering with it, this Court cannot resort to reappraisal of the same. This is particularly so because all the facts which the learned counsel for the petitioner wants to be taken into consideration were already considered and a decision was given. It also appears from the record that there has been going on contentious litigation between other persons in respect of the same plot or the plot in the vicinity and more than once the property was inspected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. In such a background where the conclusions of fact drawn are based on certain inspections of the spot and the history of the case it is not possible to interfere with it.
5. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.