TUFAIL MUHAMMAD KHAN (REPRESENTED BY MUHAMMAD SALEEM KHAN) AND Others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHER
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the orders of settlement authorities regarding the transfer of property No. S.86-R-74, Ferozepur Road, Lahore. The core legal question concerned the entitlement of the petitioners to a larger share of the property, specifically including a lawn and open land exceeding the physical possession held by their predecessor-in-interest. The Supreme Court held that occupants are entitled to the specific independent portions proven to be in their actual possession and consented to during settlement proceedings, and cannot claim additional areas never possessed or claimed before the original forum. The ratio decidendi is that a party cannot successfully claim property in writ or appellate proceedings that was neither in their possession nor claimed during the foundational settlement proceedings, especially when they consented to the transfer of their actual possession. The key principle laid down is that transfer of settlement properties is strictly tethered to actual physical possession and the specific boundaries accepted by the parties before the primary tribunal.
- Whether an occupant in settlement proceedings can claim additional land that was never in their actual possession?
- Is a party bound by their lack of objection to the transfer of specific portions in their actual possession before the settlement authority?
- Whether the High Court is justified in dismissing a writ petition seeking property outside the actual possession of the petitioner?
ORDER
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J. ---On remand by a Letters' Patent Bench of the Lahore High Court on the question of transfer of property No. S.86-R-74, Ferozepur Road, Lahore, to its various occupants, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 19-11-1973 gave Tufail Muhammad Khan, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, the portion of the property in his possession. The petitioners went in revision praying that "half of the residential building alongwith proportionate ground, garages and outhouses with passage be separated for the petitioner and transferred to him as an independent unit". The revision was, however, dismissed on 18-10-1975, whereupon they instituted a writ petition but the same, too, was dismissed on 22-10-1976, which dismissal is being challenged in the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were given only the building part but no portion of the lawn in front although they were entitled to three times the plinth area, which had thus been denied to them. According to the finding of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, vide his order dated 19-11-1973, the portion in possession of the petitioners was:-- "Two rooms, one store, one long room in front, two rooms, one small room, one deori, one kitchen, one bath, one latrine and walled court--yard."
There is nothing to show that the petitioners possessed any other part of the property. The "big courtyard in front and on eastern side" was found by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to have been in possession of respondent Abdul Majid. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner further recorded that .
"The portions of the property in possession of the abovementioned persons are independent in all respects and all the occupants have expressed before me that they have no objection if the portions in their respective possession are transferred to the said occupants. The portions of the property, in possession of the said successors-in-interest of Tufail Muhammad Khan, deceased, Mr. Abaul Majid, Munshi, Mst. Hussain Bibi, Feroze Din and Zahid Hussain are, therefore, transferred in their favour------.--- "------..Excess land, if any, in possession of any of the transferees shall be worked out by the Settlement Inspector and compliance reported ------.. "
It is, thus, obvious that the contesting parties had each been transferred the portion in their respective possession subject to the direction about the excess if any, that what the petitioners are now claiming had never been in their possession, that they had not laid claim to it before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and that they had no objection to the transfer, iii their favour, of only that portion of the property which had been in their possession and the same had been duly allowed to them.
3. The High Court was, therefore, right in rejecting the petitioners' writ Petition. Leave to appeal is refused.