ABDUR RAHIM And Another vs GHULAM NABI And Other
This matter arises from a civil petition for review filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenging a previous decision regarding the allotment and transfer of Ahata No.11. The core legal questions raised were whether an appeal converted from a civil petition requires a bench of at least three judges, and whether the petitioners became transferees of the disputed property by operation of law under Scheme No.VII based on occupation. The Supreme Court held that under Order XI, petitions for leave against orders made by a Single Judge of the High Court may be heard by a two-judge bench, and that the factual question of occupation had already been conclusively determined against the petitioners by the Settlement authorities based on the revenue record. Consequently, no ground for review was established, and the petition was dismissed, laying down that concurrent factual findings of settlement authorities grounded in revenue records will not be interfered with in review proceedings.
- Whether an appeal converted from a civil petition against an order of a Single Judge of the High Court requires a bench of at least three Judges?
- Can a finding of fact regarding property occupation concurrently determined by settlement authorities based on revenue records be re-examined in review?
- Whether occupation of a property under Scheme No.VII creates a legal right of transfer when revenue records indicate occupation by another party?
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- In support of this petition for review, it has been urged firstly that the respondents' Civil Petition on its conversion into appeal ought to have been heard by a Bench consisting of, at least, three Judges". This is, however, not supported by the provision of Order XI under which petitions for leave against "order made by a Single Judge of the High Court" may be heard and disposed of by a Bench of to Judges. Here the order of the High Courts impugned in the Civil Petition was by a Single Judge of that Court.
2. The main contention, however, is that the petitioners having been in occupation of Ahata No.11, had become its transferees by the operation of law under Scheme No.VII and as such that Ahata could not have been given to Ghulam Nabi. The question whether the petitioners were in occupation of the said Ahata is one of fact and in this connection the Settlement Commissioner in his order, dated 8-5-1975 and also the Additional Settlement Commissioner to whom the matter was remitted by the said order of the Settlement Commissioner, had in his order, dated 25-5-1976 held otherwise. The learned Settlement Commissioner by reference to the record had observed: "In Ahata No.11, Ghulam Nabi is in occupation according to the Jamabandi 1963-64". The Additional Settlement Commissioner, on further examination, had found the observa--tion to be borne out from the revenue record. The contention, put forth by learned counsel is, thus, repelled by a finding to the contrary by the Settlement authorities which finding had been duly noticed in the judgment under review. No case is, therefore, made out for review. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- KHADIM HUSSAIN and anothers vs THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD and others 1990 PLD Supreme Court 632