ABDUL GHANI vs SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER And Other
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that declined to interfere with an order directing the auction of a vacant plot under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction despite the petitioner's contention that the Settlement Commissioner failed to decide his revision petition on its merits. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that while the petitioner argued the revision was not heard on merits, the Settlement Commissioner had, in effect, affirmed the earlier findings of fact regarding the petitioner's lack of possession of the disputed property. The Supreme Court held that since the finding of fact concerning the absence of possession was adopted and affirmed by the Settlement Commissioner, the petitioner had no legitimate grievance. Consequently, the High Court's refusal to interfere was upheld. The key principle established is that where a revisional authority affirms a finding of fact by referencing earlier findings, such a finding becomes conclusive, precluding interference in constitutional jurisdiction.
- Can a High Court interfere in writ jurisdiction with a finding of fact regarding possession made by Settlement Authorities?
- Does a revisional order that affirms earlier findings of fact by reference constitute a decision on the merits?
- Is a finding of fact regarding the absence of possession by a party conclusive if affirmed by a Settlement Commissioner in revision?
- Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--This petition for leave to appeal calls in question judgment, dated 23rd July, 1979 of the Lahore High Court; whereby it refused to interfere with the order for disposal by auction of a vacant plot under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958).
2. The finding of fact by the concerned Settlement Authorities was that neither the petitioner nor the contesting respondent was in possession of the plot in question. A Settlement Commissioner while dismissing respondent---s revision petition rendered this finding. The revision filed by the petitioner was disposed of by another Settlement Commissioner amongst others on the technical ground that one revision petition in respect of the same property regarding the same dispute had already been dismissed by a Settlement Commissioner. A learned Judge in the High Court refused to interfere in writ jurisdiction on a petition filed by the petitioner; mainly on the ground, that according to the findings of fact the petitioner was not found in possession of the plot in question.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Settlement Commissioner did not hear the petitioner---s revision petition on merits, therefore, the finding of fact cannot be treated as conclusive.
4. Technically speaking the learned counsel is right but on proper scrutiny of the revisional order passed on petitioner's revision petition discloses that the Settlement Commissioner in this case also had in reality affirmed the finding of fact by making reference to the earlier findings by another Settlement Commissioner. In other words the earlier findings of fact regarding absence of possession of the petitioner was owned and affirmed on his revision petition also. That being so no legitimate grievance could be made before the High Court. The Constitutional petition accordingly was rightly dismissed. This petition thus fails and is dismissed.