SARDAR MUHAMMAD vs BARKAT ALI
This matter arises from a petition challenging the transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No. VII by the Tehsildar exercising powers of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner filed a civil suit to contest the transfer order, which was initially decreed by the Civil Court. However, on appeal, the Additional District Judge held that civil courts lacked jurisdiction in such matters, a view subsequently affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the concurrent findings and the core legal question regarding the ouster of civil court jurisdiction over matters exclusively assigned to settlement authorities. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Authorities possess exclusive jurisdiction in disputes of this nature, thereby upholding the concurrent findings of the lower appellate court and the High Court. The key principle laid down is that civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain matters falling within the exclusive domain of settlement authorities under the applicable settlement schemes.
- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to challenge an order of transfer of property passed by a settlement authority under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
- Do Settlement Authorities possess exclusive jurisdiction in matters concerning the transfer of property under Settlement Scheme No. VII?
ORDER
NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioner filed a suit to challenge the order of transfer of the property in question by the order, dated 3-10-1968 passed by Tehsildar Sheikhupura, exercising powers of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Land) under Settlement Scheme No. VII.
2. The Civil Court decreed the suit but, on appeal, the learned Additional District Judge held that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in the matter and accepted the appeal. Then High Court agreed with the view of the learned Additional District Judge.
3. The view of the learned Additional District Judge and upheld by the High Court that the Settlement Authorities had exclusive jurisdiction in a case of this kind is plainly correct.
4. No ground for interference.