MUHAMMAD BOOTA AND 4 Others vs NOOR AHMAD AND Other
This matter arises from a leave petition challenging an order of the High Court that dismissed the petitioners' Constitution petition as premature, holding that their contentions could be raised before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner pursuant to a remand order. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court rightly declined to interfere with settlement proceedings that had not yet reached final determination. The Supreme Court held that since the matter was validly remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the only final determination was regarding the identity of the first informer, the High Court's refusal to interfere was correct. The key principle laid down is that constitutional petitions against intermediate remand orders in settlement proceedings are premature when the parties retain the opportunity to agitate their claims before the competent authority.
- Whether a Constitution petition against an intermediate remand order in settlement proceedings is premature?
- Can parties raise their substantive contentions before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner upon remand?
- Does an informer have a recognized standing in settlement property allotments?
ORDER
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-In this leave petition the petitioner has impugned the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the petitioners' Constitution petition on the ground that it was premature. The learned Judge has, observed that the contentions raised by the petitioners can be urged before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to whom the matter stands remanded by the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 25-1-1972.
2. The original allottee of the disputed property was one Muhammad Hussain, who sold it to Muhammad Nawaz by a registered deed of mutation was sanctioned in favour of the latter on 25- 8-1963. The petitioner purchased the property from Muhammad Nawaz on 1-12-1964 by a registered deed of sale, and the mutation was attested in his favour on 24-3-1965. Respon--dent No. 1 Noor Ahmad filed a Mukhbari application against the said Muhammad Hussain and it resulted in the cancellation of the allotment of Muhammad Hussain on 21-2-1967. In July 1967 the property was proposed to be allotted in favour of the petitioners by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner in lieu of their pending units in the estate as sitting allottees. On the application of one Ghulam Mohyuddin the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, by his order dated 2-3-1970, found that he was the informer and he accordingly directed that the property should be confirmed to Ghulam Mohyuddin. The petitioners' appeal from this order was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commis--sioner on 25-8-1971. Ultimately the Settlement Commissioner by his order dated 25-1- 1972 held that respondent Noor Ahmad was the first informer and that the allotment should be made in the light of the record R. L. II and Fard Taqsim and any other documents which the petitioners may like to produce before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to whom the case was remanded.
3. It has been contended before us that respondent Noor Ahmad has no right and that the petitioners as the sitting allottees have a preferential right to the allotment of the property in their favour in lieu of their pending suits.
4. The matter has been sent on remand to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and has not been finally determined yet. The only thing that has been finally decided is that respondent Noor Ahmad is the first informer and not Ghulam Mohyuddin. As regards the rest, it is open to the petitioners to raise such con--tentions as they wish to advance before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner.
5. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed.