MUHAMMAD KHALIL Versus MUHAMMAD LUQMAN

ORDER

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J. ‑‑The dispute between the parties relates to a structure erected upon a part of Khasra No. 233 of Qasba Serai Sidhu in Tehsil Kabirwala. According to the petitioners this structure was being used for purposes subservient to agriculture. On the other hand the case of respondent No. 1 was that it was a residential house. The said khasra was allotted to the petitioners under Rehabilitation Scheme on 24‑8‑1963. Subsequently, on 8‑12‑1972, the local Tehsildar exercising powers of Assistant Settlement Commissioner transferred the structure to respondent No. 1. After receiving the transfer respondent No. l filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner for the cancellation of the allotment of the petitioner but it was dismissed. He then filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner but that too failed. On the other hand, the petitioners also filed a revision petition against the allotment of the structure to respondent No. 1 before this Settlement Commissioner. The learned Settlement Commissioner accepted their revision petition and cancelled the transfer of the structure in favour of respondent No. 1.

2. Respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit for a declaration inter alia, to the effect that the orders made by the Settlement Commissioner were illegal. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court with the finding, inter alia, that the civil Courts had no jurisdiction in the matter. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal which was accepted by the Additional District Judge and his suit was decreed. The petitioners filed a revision petition in the High Court but without any success. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.

3. In support of this petition it is contended that the question 'Whether the structure in question was a house or constituted agricultural land was one for the Settlement Authorities to decide and that the lower Courts had no jurisdiction to sit in judgment upon their findings in this regard. Consequently, the High Court as well as the Additional District Judge erred in holding that the suit of respondent No. 1 was maintainable. In support of this contention reference has been made to a decision of the Lahore High Court reported as Muhammad Nawaz v. Abdullah (1s988 C L C 1285).

4. The contention raised in support of this petition needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs. 5,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record withy permission to the parting to file additional documents, if any, within to months.

M.Y.H./M-575/S Leave granted