Mst. SARFRAZI BEGUM AND ANOTHER vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal in limine of a writ petition by the High Court concerning the transfer of urban property during settlement operations. The petitioners challenged the finding of fact that they had voluntarily withdrawn from the contest regarding the property transfer, noting that the beneficiaries of the transfer were their close first-degree relatives. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of a 27-day delay in filing the petition, finding sufficient cause to condone the delay. Regarding the merits, the Court examined the concurrent findings of fact made by the lower authorities and affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that it would not interfere with findings of fact where the petitioners had effectively abandoned their claim to the property. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that the Supreme Court will not disturb concurrent findings of fact in the absence of a compelling justification or legal error.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a party's withdrawal from a property contest?
- Is a 27-day delay in filing a petition for leave to appeal sufficient to warrant dismissal if valid grounds for condonation are provided?
ORDER
1. M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-This petition is barred by 27 days. The ground for condonation mentioned in the application filed in this behalf furnishes enough cause for condonation. We accordingly condone the delay.
2. ' The subject-matter of the writ petition, filed by the petitioners in the High Court which was dismissed in limine was the transfer of an urban property which had been divided in the Settlement operation. In the order impugned in the High Court, it was observed that the petitioners went out of the contest and were no longer in the field claiming the transfer of the property. We have noticed that the beneficiaries, on account of the petitioners going out of the contest, were their close relations in first degree. Learned counsel has tried to challenge the finding of face (affirmed by the High Court) regarding the petitioners having voluntarily gone out of the contest. After hearing him in this behalf, we find no justification to interfere with the finding of fact. This petition accordingly is dismissed.