FATEH MUHAMMAD vs MUHAMMAD SHAFT
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a review application concerning an urban settlement dispute. The core legal question involved whether the High Court could interfere with the administrative division of a property that had been treated as a single building for transfer purposes, despite previous separate numbering of its component units. The petitioner, a transferee of a substantial portion of the building, challenged the division methodology, arguing for a different site plan interpretation. The Supreme Court examined the relevant documents and the site plan but found no legal error or contravention of established principles in the lower court's decision. The Court held that the division of the property by competent authorities did not warrant interference under the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming the principle that courts will not exercise constitutional jurisdiction to re-evaluate factual determinations or administrative divisions of property made by competent authorities absent a clear violation of law or legal principle.
- Can the High Court interfere with the administrative division of property under its constitutional jurisdiction in the absence of a violation of law?
- Is a site plan's interpretation sufficient grounds for the Supreme Court to overturn a property division made by competent authorities?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 29-11-1980 of the Lahore High Court; whereby review application filed by the petitioner which had arisen out of an urban settlement case, was dismissed.
2. The portion in dispute it seems was, at some stage of protracted litigation between the contesting parties, transferred in favour of the petitioner in accordance with one mode of division. However, subsequently notwithstanding the separate numbering of the component units of the same property it was treated as one building and then transferred after making a division with reference to main numbers i.e., 605 and 606. The petitioner is the transferee of, it is stated a substantial part of the building. Not feeling satisfied upto the High Court which refused to interfere with the division of the property, the petitioner has sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel has taken us through the relevant documents including the site plan which he considered to be more authentic. After hearing him at some length, we agree with the High Court that the division of the property could not be interfered with in the Constitutional jurisdiction. No law or any principle having been' contravened, we find no force in this petition. It is accordingly 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.