MUHAMMAD SHARIF AND Others vs THE ADMINISTRATOR (RESIDUAL
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine a constitutional petition relating to an urban settlement case. The petitioners sought the transfer of a property in 1979, claiming that parts of it were available for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. IX, notwithstanding that the property had been transferred to respondent No. 3 nearly two decades prior. The core legal question concerned whether findings of fact regarding the entirety of the property's transfer and the inordinate delay constituting laches could be reopened. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact stood properly concluded and no question of law or principle was involved. The Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact that are well-concluded, particularly when the challenge suffers from inordinate delay and laches.
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the transfer of property under a settlement scheme be reopened in the Supreme Court?
- Does an inordinate delay in applying for the transfer of property amount to laches in urban settlement cases?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has been sought from order dated 30-3-1981, of the Lahore High Court, whereby a Constitutional petition arising out of an urban settlement case, was dismissed in limine.
2. Petitioners applied for the transfer of a property in 1979, which was transferred to the respondent No. 3 nearly two decades ago, on the plea that the said transfer was nor of the whole unit and that some parts thereof are `available' for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. IX. The findings of fact, however, are that the whole of the property had been transferred and that petitioners' application suffered from inordinate delay, which would in law amount to laches.
3. After hearing the learned counsel who pressed arguments to challenge findings of fact, we do not consider it a fit case for reopening the questions of fact which stand properly concluded. No question of law or principle isinvolved. This petition is dismissed.