GHULAM NABI AND Another vs Khan MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN, SETTLEMENT
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court dismissing a writ petition that challenged the decision of the Settlement authorities regarding the transfer of a disputed house. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court erred in refusing to interfere with the factual finding of the Settlement authorities regarding prior possession of the property. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement authorities rendered their decision after properly considering the record and affording a full hearing, and that the High Court correctly declined to reappraise the evidence in writ jurisdiction merely because an alternative view was possible. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that superior courts exercising writ jurisdiction will not reappraise factual evidence or substitute their own view for that of the competent settlement authorities when the latter have acted within their jurisdiction.
- Can the High Court reappraise factual evidence in writ jurisdiction to reach a different conclusion than the Settlement authorities?
- Does the mere possibility of taking another view of the evidence furnish ground for interference in writ jurisdiction?
- Are findings of fact rendered by Settlement authorities after consideration of record and hearing open to challenge without showing lack of jurisdiction?
1. S. A. RAHMAN, J.-In this case, on a previous writ petition, the High Court remanded the case for decision of the question of fact by the Settlement authorities, as to which of the parties was in prior possession of the disputed property. The Settlement authorities, eventually found that the respondent was in prior possession and directed the transfer of .The house to him. The order of the Settlement authorities was challenged again by a writ petition in the High Court, which was dismissed. The petitioners now seek Special Leave to Appeal from the, order of tile High Court.
2. Mr. Ghazanfar Ali Gondal, on behalf of the petitioners was unable to satisfy us that the orders of the Settlement authorities on the point that the petitioners, or the respondent, was in prior possession of the house, were in any way open to challenge or without jurisdiction. The order was passed after considera--tion of the material placed on record by both the parties, and after giving them full hearing. Merely because another view of the evidence is possible, would furnish no ground for interferrous in writ jurisdiction. What the learned. Counsel really wants to do is to reappraise the evidence which was construed in favour of the respondent. This is not the function of this Court.
3. There is no force in this petition and it is hereby 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.
Cited by 7 cases
- Mian MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ SHARIF through Attorney vs ELECTION 2003 PLD Lahore 646
- GHULAM DASTGIR vs MUHAMMAD ZAKRIA JAVED And Other 1987 SCMR 796
- AFTAB HUSSAIN vs COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND LAND CUSTOMS, QUETTA And 2Others 1987 P Cr. L J 1413
- QUETTA CLUB LTD., QUETTA CANTT. THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR vs MUSLIM 1983 PLD Quetta 46
- Mirza MUQUEEM BAIG vs ELECTION AUTHORITY HYDERABAD AND I5 OTHER 1982 CLC 291
- SHABBIR KHAN vs AMIR BUX AND 5 OTHER 1982 CLC 2583
- Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif vs The Election Commission Of Pakistan, Constitution Avenue, Islamabad And Other , K.L.R. 2003 Civil Cases 193