S. SHABBIR HUSSAIN AND 2 Others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a revision petition challenging a decision by the delegate Chief Settlement Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the respondent, Mst. Bashiran, was the daughter of Mohar Singh and thus entitled to inherit the disputed property, and whether the claim of a reversioner, Moti, was valid. The Supreme Court held that the determination of Mst. Bashiran's status as the daughter of Mohar Singh and the status of Moti as a reversioner were pure questions of fact, which the High Court correctly declined to interfere with, as they were based on evidence. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the allotment to the vendors under Martial Law Regulation No. 89 was invalid because the information provided by the informer was incorrect, confirming Mst. Bashiran as the sole heir. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower forums when those findings are supported by evidence.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact made by settlement authorities when those findings are based on evidence?
- Does an allotment made under Martial Law Regulation No. 89 remain valid if the information provided by the informer is found to be incorrect?
- Is a person who has not made a claim entitled to be considered a reversioner in property disputes before settlement authorities?
- Martial Law Regulation No. 89
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIIN AHMAD, J.-A Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, remanded the matter to the delegate Chief Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision on the point as to whether Mst. Bashiran respondent No. 2 was the daughter of Mohar Singh whose succession is in dispute. On the evidence produced by the parties, the delegate Chief Settle--ment Commissioner, by order dated the 19th June 1968, came to the conclusion that Mst. Bashiran was the daughter of Mohar Singh and was entitled to inherit leis property in dispute. The petitioners challenged this order in Settlement Revision No. 72 of 1968 and a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, by order dated the 14th February 1972, has dismissed the revision petition.
2. None of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners has any force. The question whether Mst. Bashiran is the daughter of Mohar Singh is a question of fact and the High Court was perfectly justified in not interfering with the finding of fact which is based on the evidence. Similarly, the question whether Moti is a reversioner of Mohar Singh is a question of fact.
3. Moti had not made any claim and, therefore, the Settlement authorities were perfectly justified in holding that he had no claim in the property in dispute. The last point that the allotment of the vendors under Martial Law Regulation No. 89 could not be called in question has also no force because the information laid down by the informer was not correct and it was found that the land in dispute had been rightly allotted to Mst. Bashiran as sole heir of Mohar Singh. As a result of this, the entire transaction of allotment to the vendors and the petitioners and their purchasers fell to the ground. There is no merit in the petition which is dismissed.