MUHAMMAD SULAIMAN Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (L), VEHARI
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged the Lahore High Court's dismissal of a constitutional petition concerning the allotment of evacuee property. The core dispute involved competing claims over two fields in Tehsil Vehari, which were originally allotted to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in 1951, but subsequently confirmed in favor of a third party, Wali Muhammad, whose interest was later acquired by the petitioner's father. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, acting as a notified officer, set aside the allotment to Wali Muhammad and restored the original allotment to respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court's refusal to interfere with this administrative decision was justified. The Court held that since respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were the original allottees and their claims were verified prior to the allotment to Wali Muhammad, they held a superior entitlement to the land. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the administrative order, ruling that the respondents were better entitled to the disputed fields, and dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Are original allottees with verified claims entitled to preference over subsequent allottees of evacuee property?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with an administrative order regarding land allotment where the original allottees have a superior claim?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J. ‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 26‑3‑1988 of the Lahore High Court whereby the constitutional petition of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to two fields falling in square No.26 (now square No.27) of Chak No.166/E.B. of Tehsil Vehari. These fields were evacuee property and were soon after Independence allotted to respondents Nos.2 and 3. Their claim was verified on 28‑2‑1951. Nevertheless, the said fields were confirmed in favour of one Waif Muhammad on 31‑12‑1951. Wali Muhammad later sold them to Ata Muhammad, father of the petitioner.
3. After some protracted litigation to which it is un‑necessary to refer the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Vehari, presumably acting as notified officer, set aside the allotment of Wali Muhammad and restored that of respondents Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner in writ jurisdiction but without any success. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we 'do not think that this is a fit case for interference with the order of the High Court. Admittedly, respondents Nos.2 and 3 were the origins allottees of the land. It is also not disputed that they were claimants. There is a finding by the Additional Settlement Commissioner that 'their claims were verified before the fields in dispute were allotted to Wali Muhammad. In the circumstances, respondents Nos.2 and 3 were better entitled to the allotment of the fields in dispute in, preference to the petitioner. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
M.I. /M‑509/S Petition dismissed.