MUHAMMAD BASHIR vs SETTLEMENT & REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the concurrent factual findings of the Settlement authorities. The core legal question was whether the disputed chaubara could be treated as an independent unit and transferred separately to its occupant. The Supreme Court held that the question involved was essentially one of fact, upon which the highest authority in the settlement organization had already recorded a finding that the chaubara constituted an independent and separate unit. Consequently, the High Court was legally justified in refusing to interfere with that finding, and the Supreme Court affirmed the same, holding that the impugned order warranted no interference. The key principle laid down is that superior courts exercising constitutional or appellate jurisdiction will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact rendered by specialized settlement authorities unless such findings are shown to be perverse or without jurisdiction.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with a finding of fact determined by the settlement authorities regarding the nature of a property?
- Can a disputed chaubara be treated as an independent unit for separate transfer under settlement laws?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against concurrent factual findings of lower forums and settlement authorities?
ORDER
1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The question before the Settlement authorities ultimately was whether the Chaubara in dispute could be treated as an independent unit and, therefore, be transferred separately.
2. ' After protracted proceedings it was held in the last order passed in the Settlement Document, namely, the order, dated 28-2-1976 by the Settlement Rehabilitation Commissioner that the chaubara in question was an independent unit and was, accordingly, ordered to be transferred to its occupant viz. The respondent No, 2 herein. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, but a learned Single Judge of the said Court, who heard the said petition, found no reason to interfere with the findings of the Settlement Commissioner and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. ' We have heard Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi, Advocate in support of this petition at some length.
4. The question involved is essentially one of fact, namely, whether the chaubara in dispute was or was not an independent unit on which the highest authority in the settlement organisation has given a finding that it was an independent and separate unit. The High Court, therefore, rightly refused to interfere with the said finding and we fully agree with the High Court in this regard.
5. Accordingly, its order requires no interference b this Court.