ABDUL HAMID KHAN vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI DIVISION
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside an order passed by a Settlement Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the Settlement Commissioner acted lawfully in entertaining and accepting a revision petition filed by the petitioner, Abdul Hamid Khan, years after the original order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 10 December 1959, which had transferred the disputed property as a single unit to other claimants. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the petitioner's revision petition was hopelessly barred by limitation without any valid explanation for the delay. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioner could not claim preference over the existing claimants because the portion of the property in his possession had never been legally partitioned or treated as an independent residential unit by a competent settlement authority. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the property remained a single unit and the belated revision was unsustainable in law.
- Can a revision petition be entertained by a Settlement Commissioner when it is filed years after the original order without a valid explanation for the delay?
- Does a claimant have a right to claim preference over other claimants for a portion of a property that has not been declared an independent residential unit by a competent authority?
- Is a property that has been treated as a single unit by a settlement authority subject to being split based on a belated claim by an occupant?
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The disputed property is a guest house, and it has been treated as one unit. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, after spot inspection, held that the property in question has divisible into two independent residential portions, namely, the main house and the guest house. Respon--dent Dr. Begum Usmani was a claimant and she was found in authorised possession of a half portion of the main house from a date prior to the date of possession of Mst.
2. Hajra Bi who was found to be in unauthorised possession of the other half of the main house. The main house was, accordingly, transferred to respondent Dr. Begum Usmani. As regards the guest house, although several persons were in occupation of it, respondent Captain Abdul Aziz was the only occupant who was a claimant. The others were all locals. Captain Abdul Aziz offered and agreed to a joint transfer of the guest house along with the said Mst. Hajra Bi, who was a claimant in possession of a half of the main house. The Additional Settlement Commissioner, by his order, dated the 10th December 1959, passed in appeal, accepted their joint request and ordered transfer of the guest house to them jointly in equal shares. Three revision petitions filed from this order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner by Dr. Begum Usmani, Mst. Hajra Bi and Mst. Iqbal Begum were all dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner, Mr. S. Ghiasuddin on the 27 January 1960, and the order of the Additional Settlement Com--missioner was maintained. A second revision, each filed by Mst. Hajra Bi and Dr. Begum Usmani, was dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on the 17th March 1960, and the 30th August 1960, respectively. Mst. Hajra Bi andth Captain Abdul Aziz preferred a review petition from the said order, dated the 17th March 1960, but this was dismissed on the 13th September 1962.
3. Petitioner Abdul Hamid Khan filed a belated revision petition on the 6th January 1964, from the order of the Additional Settle--ment Commissioner dated the 10th December 1959. He alleged that he had filed a N. C. H. Form on the 14th November 1959, but it was not disposed of. Two other revision petitions by two other persons were also filed from the said order, dated the 10th December 1959. By his order, dated the 10th March 1959, the Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, accepted the revision of the petitioner, but dismissed the other two revision petitions. The case was remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for passing appropriate orders on the N. C. H.
4. Form of the petitioner. Against this order, three writ petitions, including Writ Petition No. 762/R of 1965 were filed in the Lahore High Court. Writ Petition No. 762/R of 1965 was jointly filed by Captain Abdul Aziz and Mst. Hajra Bi and it was directed against the acceptance of the revision petition of the petitioner by the Settlement Commissioner. This writ petition was allowed by the High Court.
5. The High Court found that the petitioner's aforesaid revision petition was hopelessly barred by time without any valid explana--petition for the delay.
6. The petitioner had first filed an L. H. Form on the 29th August 1959, and on the 14th November 1959, he filed N. C. H. Form. He applied to the Settlement Commissioner for the transfer of the residential flat in his possession after treating the same as an independent residential unit. From the foregoing, however, it appears that the Additional Settlement Commissioner, by his order, dated the 10th December 1959, treated the entire guest house including the flat occupied by the petitioner as one residential unit and transferred the same jointly in favour of two claimant displaced persons, namely, Captain Abdul Aziz and Mst. Hajra Bi. The petitioner cannot claim any preference over the claimants. The portion in his possession has never been treated as an independent unit by a competent settlement authority. In these circumstances, we do not think that the impugned order of the High Court requires any interference.
7. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.