ASHIQ ALI And Another vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, MULTAN And Other
This petition arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing an Intra-Court Appeal regarding the transfer of urban property. The property in question was transferred by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to respondents Nos. 2 and 3, who were found to be in possession through their licensee and were claimants for its transfer. The petitioners challenged the transfer through constitutional jurisdiction, raising contentions regarding the indivisibility of the property without conscious application of mind and the maintainability of the findings of fact concerning possession. The High Court's Single Judge and the Intra-Court Appeal Bench repelled both arguments. The core legal question concerned the propriety of interfering with the discretionary exercise of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner's power to treat the property as indivisible and the factual findings on possession. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner acted within his discretionary jurisdiction in treating the property as indivisible, and the refusal of the High Court to interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction was unexceptionable. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has the discretionary jurisdiction to treat an urban property as indivisible for transfer?
- Can the High Court interfere in its constitutional jurisdiction with the discretionary exercise of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner regarding the indivisibility of property?
- Are concurrent findings of fact with regard to the possession of property maintainable in constitutional jurisdiction?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- Our order passed in C.P.No. 1488 of 1980 may be read with this order as both the matters relate to the disposal of the same property.
2. This petition is directed against judgment, dated 27-9-1980 of the Lahore High Court; whereby an Intra-Court Appeal filed by the petitioners arising out of an urban settlement case, was dismissed.
3. The property was transferred by D.S.C. In favour of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who are also the respondents in Civil Petition No.1488 of 1980. It was held to be in their possession through their licensee Mohammad Yasin who according to the learned counsel for the petitioners is also the respondents' uncle. Treating the property as indivisible and finding that the respondents were claimants /applicants for transfer, it was duly transferred to them by the D.S.C. The petitioners challenged this transfer in Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Two contentions were raised: one, that the D.S.C. Treated the property as indivisible without conscious application of mind to this question; and secondly, that the findings of fact with regard to respondents' possession were not maintainable. A learned Single Judge repelled both the arguments, with cogent reasons.
4. Same pleas were raised before the C.A. Bench but were repelled We agree with the approach of the learned Judges of the High Court or, the question of divisibility. It was within discretionary jurisdiction of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to treat the house as indivisible. The refusal of the High Court to interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction with the exercise of discretion by the concerned D.S.C. In this behalf is unexceptionable. Regarding the findings in favour of the respondents on question of possession we have already rejected the similar plea in Civil Petition No.1488 of 1980. This petition accordingly has no force and is dismissed.