Syed TASLEEM HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD ISHAQ And 2 Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the division of property by Settlement Authorities. The petitioner, a claimant displaced person, contested the Settlement Authorities' decision to divide Property No. P/1529, Rawalpindi, and transfer portions to the respondents, arguing that the authorities lacked jurisdiction to carve out portions to accommodate late claimants and that an associate of a transferee loses rights if the primary transfer is quashed. The Supreme Court examined the contentions and held that the division of property by a notified officer is a matter within the Settlement Authority's discretion and cannot be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction unless the division is shown to be arbitrary or fanciful. Finding that the parties had been in peaceful possession of their respective portions and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any illegality or impropriety in the division, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the High Court correctly declined to interfere in the Settlement Authority's settled decision.
- Can the division of property by a notified Settlement Authority be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Does an associate of a transferee automatically lose rights to property if the transfer in favor of the primary transferee is set aside?
- Under what circumstances will the High Court interfere with the division of property made by Settlement Authorities?
ORDER
MIANBURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--Leave is sought on the grounds:--
(1) That the Settlement Authorities had the jurisdiction to divide the property into various portions but they have no jurisdiction and authority, to carve out a portion of the property entitled to be transferred to claimant only to accommodate another person who claims his rights in the property after due date.
(2) That if a person had associated with a transferee of a property then he steps into the shoes of the transferee and if the transfer in favour of that person is set aside then the associate also looses all his rights in the property and he independently cannot claim anything, hence the learned High Court proceeded with material irregularity in this case by granting rights to Liaquat Hussain respondent No. 2 on the strength of an association deed with Muhammad Ishaq whose transfer was quashed by the authorities.
(3) That the Settlement Authorities can divide a property into various portions but the division is to be legal, proper and not arbitrary or fanciful. The learned High Court in the writ jurisdiction can consider the legality, the propriety and the equity of an order of divisibility.
2. The facts given by the petitioner are, that the petitioner is a claimant displaced person. He occupied major portion of Property No. P/1529, Asghar Mall Road, Rawalpindi which consisted of two wings with a common passage. The petitioner claimed to be in possession of three big rooms, Kitchen, Bath, Viranda and courtyard. It is alleged in the petition that respondent No. 11 Liaquat Hussain forcibly occupied a hall while respondent No. 1 Muhammad Ishaq occupied two rooms in the first floor. After his death his sons Muhammad Yaqoob, Naseer Ahmad, widow Mst. Hashmat Bibi forcibly occupied two rooms in the ground floor, which were previously in possession of the petitioner. In 1959 the whole house was transferred to respondent No. 1 Muhammad Ishaq which order was set aside by the High Court and, the case was remanded for a fresh decision. During the proceedings before the Settlement Authorities, the respondent No. 1 Muhammad Ishaq associated with respondent No. 2 Liaquat Hussain. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner divided the property into two portions and transferred one portion to the petitioner and the other to Muhammad Ishaq.
This order was challenged in the High Court and again the case was remanded. The Settlement Commissioner vide his order, dated 1-12-1983 gave the same portion to respondent No. 1 Muhammad Ishaq and the petitioner was deprived of a portion transferred to him by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner challenged this final decision of the Settlement Authorities in a writ petition which was dismissed vide impugned order, dated 10-4-1985.
3. We have examined the contention inter alia and find that the impugned order is unexceptionable. The division of the property in dispute by the notified officer could not be called question in the constitutional jurisdiction and the Court would not exercise the discretion' in the matter settled by the Settlement Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out that the division so made was arbitrary or fanciful, the parties have been enjoying peaceful possession over the respective portion. This petition is, therefore, found to be without merit, leave is refused.