MUHAMMAD HANIF vs MUHAMMAD JAVAID AND Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging a judgment of the High Court. The core legal question presented is whether the High Court was legally justified in setting aside an order issued by the Settlement Commissioner (Land)/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab. The Settlement Commissioner's original order was predicated on a specific finding of fact regarding the status of land in Mauza Garbagh, specifically whether the area in question was protected under the Punjab Land Preservation (Chos) Act, 1900, and the relevant notifications issued thereunder. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the High Court's interference with this factual finding and the application of the aforementioned Act. The Court also issued notice to the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, and directed that the interim stay order remain in effect, with the petitioner undertaking not to obstruct tenants from paying batai to the respondents pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
- Was the High Court justified in setting aside the factual findings of the Settlement Commissioner regarding the applicability of the Punjab Land Preservation (Chos) Act, 1900?
- Does the land in Mauza Garbagh fall under the protection of the Punjab Land Preservation (Chos) Act, 1900?
- Punjab Land Preservation (Chos) Act, 1900
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-Leave to appeal is granted to consider whether the High Court was justified in law in setting aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner (Land)/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab, based on the finding of fact that "none of the area in which Abadan (the vendor of the respondents) was a co-sharer in Mauza Garbagh stood protected under the Punjab Land Preservation (Chos) Act, 1900 and the notification issued thereunder.
2. Notice also to issue to the Chief -Settlement Commissioner, Punjab (Egerton Road, Lahore).
3. Security in the sum of Rs. 2,000.
4. To be made ready on the present record, with liberty, to the parties to add further documents, if any: Interim order of stay to continue in the same terms. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated before us that the petitioners will not obstruct the tenants from paying the batai to the respondents 1-4.