Master MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM vs Mst. AMINA BIB AND OTHERS
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning a house property in Lahore claimed by both the petitioner, who allegedly purchased it in an unrestricted public auction held by the Settlement Department, and the first respondent, who claimed ownership based on an agreement of association and a Permanent Transfer Deed. The core legal question involved the genuineness of the competing transfer documents and whether disputed questions of fact could be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly declined to resolve disputed questions of fact in its constitutional jurisdiction and correctly remanded the matter to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for a proper enquiry in the presence of the parties. The key principle laid down is that disputed questions of fact regarding transfer documents in settlement matters ought to be resolved through factual inquiry by the competent administrative authority rather than through constitutional petitions in the High Court.
- Can disputed questions of fact regarding property transfer documents be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether the High Court is justified in remanding a matter involving disputed settlement documents to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for enquiry?
- Section 29, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
ORDER
1. ' S. A. NUSRAT, J.-The dispute in this petition relates to a house property No, S. 1/52-S-9, Purani Meva Mandi, Lahore. The said house was allegedly purchased by the petitioner in an unrestricted public auction held on 30-11-1977 by the Settlement Department. On the other hand, the property was also claimed by the first respondent on account of an agreement of association dated 27-11-1962 whereby one Ahmad Sharif had surrendered his rights in her favour. She claimed to have obtained a P. T. D. In her favour dated 15-6-1964. On 29-7-1972 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner addressed a notice under section 29 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation)
2. Act, 1958 to respondent. No, 3 and others alleging that they were unauthorisedly occupying the house in question and asking them to show cause as to why they should not be ejected. The respondents having found that the house in question had been included in the auction list and allegedly purchased by the petitioner, filed a constitution petition in the High Court challenging such transfer. As the dispute related to genuineness of the transfer documents issued to the parties, the learned High Court first asked the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to make necessary verification of the documents in the presence of the parties. In spite of the repeated opportunities given by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner no one appeared before him and hence the enquiry could not be completed. In these circumstances, the learned High Court found that the matter involved disputed questions of facts which could not be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction and the matter was, therefore, sent back to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for conducting enquiry into the matter in the presence of the parties and to decide the case according to law.
3. ' It is a matter of regret that so far no enquiry has been held, as informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in spite of the fact that no order of stay in this behalf was passed by this Court. The order of stay was only to the effect that the respondents will not dispose of the property which was not a bar for holding of any enquiry.
4. Having heard the learned counsel, we are satisfied that the order of the learned Single Judge in the High Court is unexceptionable and if the parties had taken interest in the matter and appeared before the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, the dispute may have been resolved by now.
5. ' The petition in the circumstances fails and is dismissed accordingly.
6. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, requests that a direction be issued to the Settlement authorities for early disposal of the case. We, therefore, order that the direction of the learned High Court should be complied with by the Authorised Officer of the Settlement Department having jurisdiction in the case at an early date.