Pakistan Case Law
1983 SCMR 1089

HAYAT MUHAMMAD vs ZAHOOR UL HASSAN AND Other

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1983 SCMR 1089
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No. 574 of 1976 Writ Petition No. 254IR/1976
Date1983-03-14
Judge(s)Aslam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah
Authored byNasim Hasan Shah
ResultM.
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court refusing to interfere with the order of the Settlement Commissioner, whereby the claim of the petitioner was negatived. The core legal question involves the propriety of the High Court's refusal to interfere with the factual and legal determinations made by the Settlement Commissioner in settlement proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the criticism levelled against the Settlement Commissioner's order does not affect its essential correctness, and consequently, no fault could be found with the High Court's decision to decline interference. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that the superior courts will not interfere with orders of lower settlement authorities where such orders suffer from no legal infirmity or essential incorrectness.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to interfere with an order of the Settlement Commissioner when the order suffers from no essential incorrectness?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with a High Court judgment declining to set aside a Settlement Commissioner's finding that lacks legal infirmity?
writ petitionsettlement commissionerconstitutional jurisdictionsupreme court reviewsettlement proceedings

ORDER

1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. -This petition is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 20-3-1976 passed in Writ Petition No. 254-R of 1976 refusing to interfere with the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 20-11-1975, whereby the claim of the petitioner was negatived.

2. We have carefully perused the order of the Settlement Commissioner and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner but are satisfied that the criticism levelled against the said order does not affect its essential cor--rectness. In these circumstances, we cannot find fault with the learned Judge in the High Court for refusing to interfere with the said order.

3. This petition, therefore, has no force and is, accordingly, dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.