FAIZUL HAQUE KHAN Versus ABDUL HAMID
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which had interfered with an order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner regarding the transfer of disputed property. The petitioner contends that the High Court erred in its decision by misreading and ignoring critical evidence. Specifically, the petitioner argues that the respondent's claim to the property was based solely on a receipt purportedly showing the submission of an NCS form, without any corroborating evidence such as register entries or official proceedings. Furthermore, the petitioner asserts that the High Court failed to consider evidence indicating that the respondent only took possession of the property in 1960 from a third party, Raz Mohammad, whom the petitioner was actively attempting to evict through legal proceedings. Upon review, the Supreme Court finds that the case warrants further examination to determine the validity of the High Court's interference with the administrative findings. Consequently, the Court grants leave to appeal, subject to the provision of security, to resolve the underlying dispute regarding property transfer and evidence evaluation.
- Does the High Court have the authority to interfere with an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner based on a potential misreading of evidence?
- Is a receipt for an NCS form sufficient evidence to establish a claim for the transfer of disputed property in the absence of corroborating register entries?
- Does the possession of property obtained from a third party during ongoing eviction proceedings affect the validity of a claim for property transfer?
1. CORNELIUS, C. J.- It is urged that the High Court has interfered with the order of the Additional Settlement Commis sioner, on misreading anti non Treading of the evidence. The case of the respondent Syed Abdul Hamid of being entitled to transfer of the disputed property is said to be based on nothing chore than a receipt produced which purports to show that he had put in a NCS form. There was no support from any other documents, e. g., entries in registers or proceedings on the form. It is urged that by itself this receipt proved nothing.
2. Moreover, the High Court had ignored the plain evidence that Syed Abdul Hamid only took possession of the disputed property in 1960, from one Raz Mohammad whom the petitioner was then trying to evict, by proper proceedings.
3. We consider that this case requires further examination and we grant leave to appeal as prayed. Security Rs. 1,000.
4. Leave granted.