SIRAJ DIN And Others vs ALLAH RAKHA And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition concerning an urban settlement dispute. The core legal question was whether two properties, bearing distinct identification numbers, were in reality a single property, which would affect the validity of the transfer of the disputed property to the respondent via auction. Following a remand in an earlier round of litigation, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner rendered a finding of fact that the two numbers represented separate properties. This finding was subsequently affirmed by a Single Judge of the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners contended that the findings of fact were based on a misreading of evidence, specifically pointing to an administrative error regarding a statement purportedly made by a predecessor-in-interest after his death. The Supreme Court held that the mistake regarding the statement was minor and innocent, and that the finding of fact was supported by several other independent factors. Consequently, the Court found no legal infirmity in the High Court's judgment and dismissed the petition.
- Whether a minor factual error regarding a statement attributed to a deceased person invalidates a finding of fact supported by other independent evidence?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities and the High Court be interfered with in the absence of a manifest jurisdictional error or material illegality?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 3-8-1977 of the Lahore High Court whereby a writ petition arising out of an urban settlement case was dismissed by a learned Single Judge.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly brought to our notice that the essential question involved in this case is whether Property No.P.IX-3-S-2 which admittedly stands transferred to Umar Din, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and is not in dispute, and Property No. B. IX-2-S-3 which is in dispute between the contesting parties are in reality (notwithstanding having been allotted two numbers) one property.
3. After lengthy litigation, in proceedings taken on a remand ordered by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction in an earlier round on 21-3-1973, a D.S.C in the order passed in July 1976 gave the finding of fact against the petitioner to the effect that the two number represented two separate properties accordingly the second property the one in dispute, stood validly transferred to respondent No.1 as a result of auction proceedings. This order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was challenged in the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. A learned Single Judge examined the merits of the pleas raised from the petitioner's side for setting aside the findings of fact and after having considered the same affirmed them and dismissed the writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had noted in the order impugned in the High Court that Umar Din had made a statement on 9-5-1974 declining to produce evidence regarding the controversy but in reality U mar Din had died on 29-1- 1974, therefore, it was a clear case of misreading of evidence in the High Court and that the High Court has ignored this aspect. He has also contended that the findings of fact by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, as also by the High Court, are manifestly wrong.
5. It appears there is some mistake, though innocent, with regard to the statement of Umar Din which was only one of the factors noted in the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. There were several other factors on account of which he gave findings of fact against the petitioners. The High Court having noted the salient features of the case affirmed those findings. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity. This petition is accordingly dismissed.