ALLAH DIN Versus SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (URBAN)
This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of property No. S-60-R-31, Mozang Road, Lahore, which had been the subject of prolonged litigation. Following a previous remand order from the High Court, the Settlement Commissioner was directed to conduct a fresh measurement of the premises in the presence of the parties and perform a personal inspection to determine the transfer of the property. The Settlement Commissioner subsequently determined that the petitioner, Allah Din, was in actual possession of a specific area measuring 3 Marlas and 123 square feet, and ordered the transfer of this area to him. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court, arguing he was entitled to additional area, but the petition was dismissed on the grounds that the findings were factual and no objections were raised during the inspection. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not claim the transfer of any area beyond what was found to be in his actual possession. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
- Can a claimant seek the transfer of property area that is not in their actual possession?
- Does a finding of fact made by a Settlement Commissioner after personal inspection warrant interference in writ jurisdiction?
ORDER
M.S.H.
QURAISHI, J.-- The dispute relating to the disposal of property No, S-60-R-31, Mozang Road, Lahore, has been continuing for a long time. In the third round, the High Court by its order, dated 6- 7-1981 passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 1198/R of 1976 of Siraj Din etc. And 1224/R of 1976 of Muhammad Akbar, remanded the matter with the direction that the Settlement Commissioner should have the measurements carried out afresh in the presence of the parties and, after personal inspection of the premises and in the presence of the parties, should finally decide the question of the transfer. The learned Settlement Commissioner complied with the directions and in the result found Allah Din petitioner, to be in possession of an area 22' x 28'=616 sq. Ft., on which he had constructed a workshop and 182 sq. Ft. On the other side of the shop, i,e,, in all 798 sq. Ft. Or 3 Marlas 123 sq. Ft., which area he transferred in his favour by order, dated 14-6-1983. Not satisfied, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No, 304/R of 1983, which was, however, dismissed by the impugned order dated 19-10- 1983 for the reason that the Settlement Commissioner had personally gone to the spot in the presence of the parties and looked into the measurements but that no objection had been taken to those measurements and that, in any case, the question involved only a finding of fact. Hence this petition.
2.The contention is that the petitioner has been given an area equal to that on which he had raised construction but he was entitled to an additional area equal to three times the built-up area. From the Settlement Commissioner's order we find that the total area which was found to be in his actual possession was 3 Marlas 123 sq. Ft. That being so, he could not seek transfer of any other area which was not in his possession. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.