CAPT. HIDAYAT ALI vs ALI MUHAMMAD AND Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's claim for the transfer of servant quarters associated with a larger bungalow. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in upholding the Settlement Commissioner's finding that the servant quarters constituted a distinct and separate property unit, given they were situated on a different Khasra number, separated by a dead wall, and accessed via a separate lane. The Supreme Court examined the site plan and relevant documents and concluded that the High Court's decision to uphold the Settlement Commissioner's finding of fact was just and fair. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the finding regarding the distinct nature of the property units was not subject to interference in the writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed, affirming that findings of fact based on spot inspections by competent authorities, when reasonable, are generally uninterferable by the High Court.
- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact made by a Settlement Commissioner after a spot inspection?
- Does a property separated by a dead wall and situated on a different Khasra number constitute a distinct unit for the purpose of transfer?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The petitioner's writ petition in the High Court (W. P. No. 716-R of 1977) was admitted to a regular hearing on one question but rejected as regards another matter, namely, his plea that he was entitled to the transfer of servant .Quarters of a large house, a portion of which is in his possession.
2. The learned Judge in the High Court on this aspect of the matter observed :- "As regards the servant quarters, the learned Settlement Commissioner, after spot inspection, held that those constituted distinct unit being situated on a different Khasra No. And were separated from the main bungalow with a dead wall and opened out in a separate lane. It was directed that those be disposed of separately in favour of the occupant applicants."
3. It was further held that the quarters have been found, after spot inspection by the Settlement Commissioner himself as distinct and separate entity and such a finding was uninterferable by the High Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, examined the site plan and other documents shown to us and are of the opinion that the view taken by the High Court is a just and fair one and does not require any interference.
5. This Petition is, therefore, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.