Mst. AKHTAR BIBI And Others vs MANSOOR AHMAD MALIK And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the transfer of a house located in Krishan Nagar, Lahore, by settlement authorities. The dispute involved competing claims between the respondents and the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, Habibullah. The settlement authorities had determined that the property was indivisible and that the respondents held possession prior to the petitioners' predecessor. The High Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction, found no legal infirmity in these factual findings and declined to interfere with the transfer order. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's refusal to interfere was proper, as the findings of the settlement authorities regarding the indivisibility of the property and the priority of possession were supported by the record. The Court affirmed that in the absence of any jurisdictional error or illegality in the findings of the settlement authorities, the High Court correctly exercised its discretion to uphold the transfer. Consequently, the petition was found to be without merit and was dismissed.
- Can the High Court interfere with the factual findings of settlement authorities regarding property transfer in writ jurisdiction?
- Does the priority of possession constitute a valid ground for the transfer of an indivisible property by settlement authorities?
ORDER
1. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The dispute in this petition relates to a house situate in Krishan Nagar, Lahore. It has been transferred by the settlement authorities to respondents Nos.2 and 3 in preference to Habibullah, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. There are findings of the settlement authorities that the house was indivisible and that the possession of respondents Nos.2 and 3 was prior in point of time to that of Habibullah. It may be mentioned that respondents Nos.2 and 3 as well as Habibullah were claimants. The High Court in writ jurisdiction has found no infirmity in the above-noted findings of the settlement authorities; that being so, its refusal to interfere with the transfer made in favour of respondents Nos.2 and 3 was only proper. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.