Ch. MUHAMMAD NAZIR AHMAD vs Mirza MAHMOOD ALI BEG AND ANOTHER
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal filed by a Settlement Commissioner against the dismissal of his Letters Patent Appeal by the High Court, which had upheld an order directing the tentative confirmation of land allotment in favor of the respondent pending a pending inquiry into his claim. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the High Court's interim direction confirming the proposed allotment subject to the outcome of ongoing verification inquiries. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order was merely tentative and properly safeguarded by making the confirmation subject to the final result of the pending inquiry, thereby removing any legitimate grievance. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing that an interim or tentative confirmation of land claims subject to pending inquiries does not warrant interference where subordinate claimants have not contested the matter themselves and the departmental authority lacks personal legal standing to challenge it on their behalf.
- Whether the High Court can order tentative confirmation of a land allotment pending the result of an inquiry into the genuineness of a claim?
- Whether a Settlement Commissioner has personal standing to maintain an appeal against an order directing tentative confirmation of land when no affected private claimants have challenged the order?
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The respondent, Mirza Mahmood A.I Beg, who is a claimant, got his claim registered in villages Pattal Munda and Perhar Munda, in Muzaffargarh District, but the Settlement Department refused to confirm the proposed allotment in his favour under the scheme, as an inquiry had been instituted with regard to the genuineness of his claim. This meant that the respondent's allotment could be cancelled or reduced in case his entitlement was found to be untenable wholly or partially. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was accepted by a learned Single Judge in chambers, who directed that the land proposed in favour of the respondent in the two villages mentioned above, be confirmed pending the result of the inquiry, which has already been instituted. The petitioner, who is a Settlement Commissioner, with no apparent personal interest in this land, first sought a review of the order of the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed, and then filed a Letters Patent Appeal in the High Court, which was also dismissed. He has now come to this Court with a petition for special leave to appeal.
2. On our repeated inquiries as to why, in spite of .His admission that he was in no way interested in this land personally, he was insistently opposing the confirmation in favour of the respondent, he has stated that there were other petty claimants whose claims were pending in this estate, which had been received before the claim of the respondent, and which had, therefore, to be given priority. But the persons, who are alleged to have been prejudicially affected by the High Court's order in favour of the respondent, have not moved in the matter, and we are unable to comprehend why is the petitioner fighting their battle. Nonethe--less, however, altruistic the motive of the petitioner may be, as professed by him, we see no 'substance in this petition. The confirmation in favour of the respondent has been ordered by the High Court only tentatively, as it was being delayed illegally and without cause. The order of the High Court makes it clear that this confirmation will be subject to the result of the inquiry, which is pending in the matter. This should allay the apprehen--sions of the petitioner and all others concerned in tile matter.
3. This petition is dismissed.