FAIZAN ALI vs ALI MUHAMMAD AND Other
This matter arises from two petitions filed against the order of the High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petitions in a settlement matter. The core legal question concerns whether grounds exist for interfering with the concurrent findings and judgments of the High Court and the Settlement Department rendered over a protracted period. The Supreme Court held that no good ground was urged to warrant interference with the impugned judgment, noting that numerous officers in the Settlement Department and the learned Judges of the High Court had thoroughly examined every aspect of the case over twenty years. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of lower forums and the High Court in settlement matters absent a compelling and valid legal ground.
- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal against concurrent dismissal of writ petitions in settlement matters without a compelling ground?
- Can a party successfully challenge concurrent findings of the High Court and Settlement Department without pointing out material legal infirmities?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-This order shall dispose of two Petitions y(Nos. 108 and 109 of 1977) both filed by Faizan A.I son of Fateh Din against the order of the High Court, dated 12-11-1976, dismissing his two writ petitions in a settlement matter.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at consider--able length. On going through the record we find that he filed as many as four writ petitions all of which have been dismissed by the High Court. The matter was also considered by numerous officers in the Settlement Department during the last 20 years. The said officers as well as the learned Judges in the High Court have thoroughly thrashed out the case and dealt wit every aspect thereof. The petitioners learned counsel has not been able to urge any good ground for interference with the impugned judgment. Consequently, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave.
The petitions are, therefore, dismissed.