ATA ULLAH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SHAFT And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition concerning the transfer of land comprising various Khasra numbers situated in village Mian Mir, Lahore. The petitioner had moved an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, contending that the disputed property was urban land rather than agricultural land. The settlement authorities examined the revenue records and found the property to be agricultural. The High Court declined to interfere with this concurrent finding of fact. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was fully justified in declining to interfere with a finding of fact. Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having already received an allotment of specific Khasra numbers under Scheme No. VI, could not lay claim to the transfer of other portions of the land upon the assertion that they were urban plots. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Whether the High Court is justified in declining to interfere with a concurrent finding of fact recorded by settlement authorities regarding the nature of land?
- Can a person who has already received an allotment of land under Scheme No. VI lay claim to the transfer of other portions of land upon an assertion that they are urban plots?
- Whether an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 can succeed when revenue records establish the land to be agricultural?
- Section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958
- Section 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958
ORDER
M.S.H.QURAISHI, J.-- From the land comprising Khasra Nos. 931, 933, 934, 935, 942, 945 and 2103, situate in village Mian Mir, within the municipal limits of the City of Lahore, the first to Khasra numbers were transferred to the Petitioner's father under Scheme No.VI and the remaining to the respondent's as agricultural land. This transfer in favour of the respondents was disputed by the petitioner who moved an application under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, contending that the property, according to the Special Jamabandi of 1946- 47, was " QABIL-E-TAMEER SHEHRI URBAN " and not agricultural land. The Settlement authorities after examining the revenue records for the period both prior and subsequent to 1947, came to the finding that the property was 'nehri' and cultivated by the petitioner's father as agricultural land.
The High Court declined to go behind the above finding of fact and accordingly dismissed the petitioner's writ petition by the impugned order dated 11-1-1981.
2. We find no merit in this petition for leave to appeal, not only for the reason that the High Court was justified in declining to interfere with a finding of fact but also because the petitioner having already received allotment of Khasras Nos.931 and 933 under Scheme No. VI could not lay claim to transfer in his favour of other portions of the land upon an assertion that the same were urban plots. The petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.