SAIF ALI vs GALAS DIN AND Other
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition concerning the disputed allotment of land under Settlement and Rehabilitation laws. The petitioner, claiming to be a displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir, asserted that he was allotted the land in question prior to the respondents. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's earlier allotment was valid and whether the subsequent allotment to the respondents constituted an illegal double allotment. The Settlement Commissioner, in a revisional order, had previously determined that the petitioner's claim was factually unsubstantiated. The High Court, upon review, affirmed this, further noting that the petitioner failed to satisfy necessary conditions regarding the drawing of rations required for such an allotment. The Supreme Court held that the findings regarding the disputed allotment were findings of fact that had been thoroughly examined by the lower authorities. Finding no justification to re-open these settled factual determinations, the Court dismissed the petition, reinforcing the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in the absence of legal error.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding land allotment made by settlement authorities?
- Does an allotment made without satisfying mandatory conditions, such as the drawing of rations, confer a valid legal right?
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal has" been sought from judgment dated 10.6-1975 of the Lahore High Court ; whereby a constitutional petition arising out of allotment of land under the Settlement Rehabili--tation Laws, was dismissed.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Saif A.I petitioner who claimed to be a displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir was allotted nearly 80 kanals of land on 30.4-1962.
Notwithstanding this allotment the same land excepting one. Khasra No. 113, was allotted to the respondent's side on 1-11-1965. An appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed on 30-9-1972 and his allotment was restored. However, a revision petition filed from the respondents side was accepted on 7-11-1973. The appellate order dated 30-9-1972 was set aside and the order of respondents' allotment dated 1-11-1965 was restored. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a writ petition (No. 1094-R of 1973) and the same having been dismissed on 10-6-1975 he has now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel has vehemently contended that the petitioner was allotted the land in question earlier in time, therefore, the second allotment which would amount to double allotment, was illegal and without lawful authority.
4. The entire question as to whether the petitioner was allotted the land in dispute prior to its allotment to the respondents side, was examined in detail by the Settlement Commissioner. The findings of fact in this behalf in the revisional order dated 7-11-1973 are against the petitioner.
Notwithstanding the same, the' learned Single Judge in the High Court again examined the question whether there was any lawful allotment in favour of the petitioner prior to the allotment made to the respondents' side. He came to and additional conclusion that keeping in view the date of alleged allotment in favour of the petitioner, the same could not have been made unless certain condition, regarding drawing of rations satisfied; and, because the petitioner had failed so to satisfy that condition no such allotment could have been made.
5. After hearing the learned counsel at some length, we feel that the main question regarding the disputed allotment claimed to have been made in favour of the petitioner stands' concluded by the findings of fact. No justification has been made out for re-opening the same in this Court. This petition accordingly is dismissed.