Hakim MUHAMMAD ISMAIL HABIB And Others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a property dispute concerning the transfer of a flat under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner’s order, which transferred the entire flat to respondent No. 2 following a remand, was legal and proper, particularly given the petitioner's argument that the Commissioner failed to consider the possibility of partitioning the property. The Supreme Court examined the impugned order and found that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had explicitly addressed the issue of divisibility, recording a clear finding that the flat was self-contained and indivisible. Consequently, the Court held that the criticism leveled by the petitioners was unjustified and that the Commissioner had acted within his authority. The Court affirmed the decision, concluding that no valid grounds for judicial interference existed, as the lower authority had properly applied its mind to the specific directions given during the remand. The judgment reinforces the principle that administrative findings of fact, such as the indivisibility of a property unit, are not subject to interference when supported by the record.
- Whether an order transferring an entire property unit is legal if the authority has recorded a finding that the unit is indivisible?
- Does a failure to consider partitioning a property invalidate a settlement order if the property is found to be self-contained and indivisible?
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The only question involved in this case is whether the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed on remand, dated 15-11-1975 transferring the whole flat to respondent No. 2 was legal and proper?
2. The contention of Mr. Jariullah Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, was that the Settlement Commissioner while remanding the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had observed that the latter should also see if the respondent is simply entitled to a portion of the flat or the whole of it and if he found that he was entitled only to a portion of it, the rest may be left with the petitioners herein; however, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner did not give any consideration to this aspect of the matter. Hence, his order was not proper.
3. We have perused the impugned order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and find that this criticism is not justified. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, in his order, has clearly stated that the flat is "self-contained and is stated not to be divisible". It is only after recording this finding that he proceeded to transfer the whole oft the flat in favour of respondent No. 2.
4. No ground for interference is made out.
5. This 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.