FAIZ ALI vs MESSRS BARKAT ALI AND Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed in limine a writ petition challenging the decision of a Settlement Commissioner regarding the transfer of a property. The parties, both in occupation of different portions of a house in Lahore, had engaged in multiple rounds of litigation. The Settlement Commissioner, relying on an inspection report by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, ordered the division and transfer of the property to the parties based on their actual physical possession. The High Court upheld this decision as a just and fair resolution. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner attempted to raise legalistic arguments challenging the Settlement authorities' order. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner's decision, based on the physical division of the property according to possession, was fair and proper. Consequently, the Court ruled that the High Court correctly refused to interfere with the administrative order in its writ jurisdiction, and the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Can a High Court interfere with a Settlement Commissioner's order that divides property based on actual physical possession?
- Is a property division order based on an inspection report by an Additional Settlement Commissioner considered a fair and proper resolution?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 23-7-1976 dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein in limine.
2. Both the parties are in occupation of different parts of a house situate in Kucha Acharian, Ghumti Bazar, Lahore. Both sought transfer of the said house resulting in several rounds of litigation between them. Ultimately, in the 3rd round, the house was ordered to be transferred by the Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 13-4-1976 to the parties in accordance with their actual possession. The petitioner being in occupation of only two rooms has, accordingly been transferred the said two rooms, while the rest of the house has gone to the respondents. The High Court considered this solution to be a just and fair resolution of the dispute and dismissed the writ petition vide its order dated 23-7-1976. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Syed Zamir Hussain, counsel for the petitioner, has been heard in support of this petition. He attempted to raise certain highly legalistic questions to assail the order of the Settlement authorities with which the High Court had refused to interfere. But we, however, are of the opinion that the order of Settlement Commissioner, who relied upon the note of the Additional Settlement Commissioner after inspection of the sport that house was capable of division and may be transferred to them in accordance with the possession of the parties, is a very fair and proper order. Such an order was mani--festly not amenable to interference by the High Court. The writ petition was, therefore, rightly dismissed and a fortiorari cannot be interfered with by this Court.
4. The petition must, accordingly, fail and is dismissed hereby.