Sh. ABDUL RASHID AND OTHERS vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an urban settlement dispute concerning the transfer of a plot of land. The petitioner, who was in possession of a portion of the plot, contended that the entire plot had been allotted to him and that the settlement authorities were legally obligated to transfer the whole plot to him, irrespective of the actual possession held by others. The respondent No. 2 was in possession of another portion, and the remaining part of the plot had been ordered for auction. The High Court had previously affirmed the findings of the settlement authorities. The Supreme Court observed that the petitioner's claim of being allotted the entire plot was factually incorrect based on the findings of the lower forums. The Court held that the settlement authorities' decision to transfer the plot based on actual possession was legally sound and free from infirmity. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact regarding allotment and possession, and leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether settlement authorities are legally obligated to transfer an entire plot to a claimant regardless of actual possession if the allotment was not for the entire plot?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding allotment and possession in a settlement case?
- Is the transfer of urban property by settlement authorities based on actual possession legally permissible?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-This, petition for leave to appeal arises out of an urban settlement case regarding a plot. The petitioner was found in possession of about 1 Kanal and 7 Marlas and the respondent No, 2 about 1 Kanal and 6 Marlas parts thereof. These parts have been transferred to them on basis of their respective possession. The remaining part, i,e, about 4 Kanals has been ordered to be auctioned. The petitioner's effort to obtain this part also having failed in the High Court, he has now-sought leave to appeal to this Court.
' Learned counsel has in the outset given up the case against respondent No,
2. His contention regarding the remaining part is that the entire plot having been "allotted" to the petitioner and he being admittedly in possession of a substantial part of it the settlement authorities had no option but to transfer the entire plot (subject of course to the concession made for respondent No, 2 now) regardless of the question of possession.
It is not necessary to examine the legal point noted above as according to the findings which were affirmed by the High Court, the petitioner was not allotted the entire plot. The approach of the settlement authorities to transfer the plot on the basis of possession and assumption that the allotment was also of the part in possession of the petitioner, does not suffer from any legal infirmity and is unexceptionable. Nor there is any other justification for this Court to interfere with the findings of fact on questions of fact regarding allotment and possession. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.