Mst. MUSHAROFA BEGUM vs Syed NAYYAR HUSSAIN AND OTHERS

1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-This appeal through special leave arising out of an Urban Settlement Case is directed against the judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 5-10-1973, whereby the petitioner's writ petition relating to an alledgedly illegal increase in the price of the property transferred to her, was dismissed.

2. Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether the price could be increased after the issuance of the P. T. D. In favour of the petitioner.

3. ' We have heard the learned counsel at some length. Firstly he contended that the P. T. D. Having been issued on 25th of January, 1962, wherein the price of the property transferred to her was calculated on the assumption that the rent was Rs, 120 P.A. Subsequently, however, according to the learned counsel on proceedings alledgedly illegally initiated by respondent No, 1 who was the transferee of another but adjacent property belonging to the same evacuee owner, the price of the property transferred to the petitioner was calculated on the basis of the rent at Rs, 360 P.A.

4. Secondly he contended that there was no justification in so far as the merits of the case are concerned, for the increase of the price.

5. ' In addition to these arguments learned counsel also contended that the petitioner's revision petition should not have been dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner merely on the ground that it pertained to the apportionment of rent and not to the entitlement regarding transfer of the property.

6. ' The order of Additional Settlement Commissioner, dated 27-8-1971 contains detailed analysis of the facts and circumstances relating to the calculation of price on the basis of rental value. Rs, 480 was the assessed rent per annum for two properties bearing Nos. 48 and 49, the former was transferred to respondent while the latter was transferred to the petitioner.

7. ' The Settlement Commissioner after inspecting the site came to the conclusion that the property transferred to the petitioner was much bigger than the one transferred to the respondent. Not only this it was also found as a fact that according to the municipal record the petitioner's property should have been evaluated at the rate of Rs, 360 per annum as rental value, while the respondents' property should have been assessed at Rs, 120 per annum rental value. When called upon to show how these findings of fact could be interfered with by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction learned counsel failed to justify any interference in this behalf. That being so the High Court could dismiss the writ petition in its discretion, on this ground alone. Moreover, if it would have interfered, the interference would have been in aid of injustice. That would also, on principle, bar the issuance of a writ. This appeal is thus liable to be dismissed on this short consideration.

8. ' However, in the circumstances of this case we are satisfied that the question regarding apportionment and fixation of price had been agitated contemporaneously with the issuance of P.

9. T. D. It was subject to the correction of price in accordance with the facts which later on was found to be against the appellant. In the circumstances discussed above, the refusal by the Settlement Commissioner to interfere with the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner could be justified even if the merits of the case would have been considered. No useful Purpose would be served by examining the technical question whether the revision petition could have been dismissed on the legal ground noted earlier.

10. ' Looked at from whatever angle this appeal has no force and is accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.