NAWAB BEGUM and another vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and another
This petition arises out of an urban settlement dispute concerning the transfer of a building to the Lahore Municipal Corporation for use as a school, against which the petitioners sought the transfer of a small portion in their possession through a C.H. Form. The Lahore High Court refused to grant relief in its writ jurisdiction, holding that the portion was inseparable from the main building and that its transfer for residential purposes would be detrimental to the school. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to the transfer of the property in preference to a local institution. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction was fully justified given that the C.H. Form covered only a part of the school building. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court will not be interfered with where the refusal to grant relief is justified by the indivisible nature of the public property in dispute, and leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether the High Court's refusal to grant relief in its discretionary writ jurisdiction is justified when the property in dispute is indivisible and meant for a public school?
- Does a C.H. Form application for a part of a building override the transfer of the main building as an inseparable school property?
- When will the Supreme Court refuse to grant leave to appeal in urban settlement matters concerning discretionary relief?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- This petition arises out of an urban settlement case relating to the transfer of the building in dispute to the Lahore Municipal Corporation as a school building, while the petitioners claimed to be in possession of a small portion thereof. The petitioners' side had applied on a C.H. Form for the transfer of the portion in their possession. In the last order impugned in the High Court in its writ jurisdiction the portion was treated as inseparable from the main building of the school and also its transfer for residence to the petitioners was considered as undivisible in the interest of the school.
2. ' Learned counsel contended that the petitioners' claim being under a C.H. Form should have been preferred over the school a local institution, for the entire property. He also contended that as a converted property, the building could not be transferred to school. He has also relied on an earlier order of remand by the High Court.
3. There does not seem to be any force in the arguments of the learned counsel but it is not necessary to deal with them in detail because the refusal of the High Court to grant relief to the petitioners in its discretionary jurisdiction in this case was fully justified in the facts and circumstances of the case particularly when the petitioners' C.H. Form was only for a part of the school building. It is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal which is accordingly refused.