ABDUL AZIZ vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal in an urban settlement case. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, a local allottee in possession of a part of the disputed house, holds a preference over the respondent claimant, given that the respondent's occupation allegedly commenced with the permission of the petitioner prior to the target date. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's finding regarding the respondent's undisputed occupation of the house was correct, as the factual occupation was admitted and no ejectment order had been passed against the respondent before the target date. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the historical circumstances of entry do not negate undisputed physical occupation in the absence of prior eviction proceedings.
- Whether an allottee in possession has preference over a claimant non-allottee when the claimant's occupation of a portion of the house is admitted?
- Does the permissive entry of a resident prior to the target date render their occupation disputed for settlement purposes in the absence of an ejectment order?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 15-3-1981 of the Lahore High Court, whereby petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal in an' urban settlement case was dismissed.
2. The petitioner is a local but allottee of the house in dispute which the respondent is a claimant non-allottee. There has been a protracted litigation earlier coming up to the High Court. But now the basis of contest between the parties is very simple. The house has not been divided and stands transferred to the respondent claimant as one unit, though the learned Judges in the High Court in the impugned judgment dealt with the question of divisibility. Now it is besides the point.
3. The learned counsel tried to raise an argument showing as if it is a point of law. But on scrutiny, in reality it has been found to be a question of fact. The precise point raised is that the petitioner being an allottee in possession of a part of the house shall have preference over the respondent notwithstanding that the latter is a claimant, because, as contended he is not in "undisputed" occupation of the house in his use. Learned counsel when dealing with the question of "undisputed" occupation explained that some years before 1958 the respondent lost his abode on account of its demolition and he was accommodated by the petitioner in a portion of the house in dispute. And although he was thus in occupation of that portion but the said occupation commenced with the permission of the petitioner. In these circumstances he argued that the finding of the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court that the respondent claimant was undisputed occupation of the house, is not correct.
4. We do in agree with him. The occupation of a part of the house by the respondent is admitted from the petitioner site. The fact that he was at the relevant the occupying the house is not disputed. So long as there is not dispute regarding the factual occupation by the respondent the circumstances in which he entered the house (with the Permission of the present petitioner) several years before the target date, will not make any difference. We asked the learned counsel whether there was any ejectment order passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent before the target date the learned counsel showed his ignorance.
5. The approach of the High Court, in the circumstances of the case, is unexceptionable. This petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.