JAFFAR HUSSAIN vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of a property plot in Lahore under the settlement laws. The petitioner challenged the transfer of the plot to the respondent, contending that the Additional Settlement Commissioner who dismissed his revision petition had a conflict of interest, having previously served as the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who initially transferred the property to the petitioner. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to set aside a predecessor's order via a miscellaneous application. The Lahore High Court dismissed these contentions, finding they were not raised before the revising authority, and further concluded that the petitioner failed to prove possession prior to the cutoff date of 31-12-1959 required for entitlement under Settlement Scheme No. VIII. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings, noting that the date of occupation is a question of fact determined by the lower court based on the record. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that no interference was warranted and dismissed the petition, affirming that factual findings regarding possession dates are not subject to appellate review when supported by the record.
- Can a petitioner raise objections regarding the jurisdiction or bias of a quasi-judicial authority for the first time in constitutional jurisdiction if they failed to raise them before the revising authority?
- Is a finding regarding the date of occupation of a property, based on a review of the record, a question of fact that precludes interference by the Supreme Court?
- Does a party who fails to establish possession of a property prior to 31-12-1959 qualify for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII?
- Settlement Scheme No. VIII
ORDER
M.S.H.QURAISHI, J.-- This petition concerns the transfer of Plot No. C/424 measuring 1 Marla 10 sq.
Ft. Situate at Paniwala Talab, Lahore. Aziz-ur-Rehman respondent who had been in occupation of this plot as also Plot No.C/425 and had raised construction on them, applied for its transfer on 14- 9-1971 but the disputed plot was transferred to the petitioner on 22-9-1971. However on the representation of Aziz-ur---Rehman the transfer was on 12-10-1972, declared by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to be invalid on the finding that the petitioner was a trespasser into the portion of the property belonging to the said respondent. The petitioner's revision having failed on 28-3-1974 he invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court but without success.
Hence this petition.
2. The points taken by the petitioner before the High Court were that the Additional Settlement Commissioner. Mr. Mansoor Ahmad Malik, who had dismissed the petitioner's revision, had been the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, on 22-9-1971, who had transferred the disputed plot in his favour and as such he could not have heard the revision, and that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who passed the order against the petitioner on 12-10-1972, had no jurisdiction, on a miscellaneous application, to have set aside the order of his predecessor dated 22-9-1971. Both the contentions failed before the High Court upon the finding that the petitioner had not raised these points before the revising authority. The High Court further found, after perusal of the documents on the file, that the petitioner had come into occupation of the disputed property in 1967, that he had not been in possession prior to 31-12-1959 and that he was thus not entitled to its transfer under Settlement Scheme NO. VIII.
3. Learned counsel disputes the correctness of the finding in regard to the date of the petitioner's occupation. In this connection he referred to an affidavit of respondent Aziz-ur-Rehman, dated 10- 7-1972 and to an F.I.R. Lodged by him on 6-3-1969, as well as an extract from the birth register of 1960 showing the birth of the petitioner's son on 22-7-1960 at the address of the disputed plot.
These documents, however, do not clinch the point in the petitioner's favour. The question as to the date of occupation of the property by the petitioner is one of fact and the High Court has given a categorical finding after reference to the record before it, with which no interference is called for.
After hearing learned counsel we do not find it to be a fit case for grant oft leave. The petition is dismissed.