ABDUL GHANI vs THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the transfer of a composite property comprising two ground-floor shops and a first-floor 'chobara'. The property was initially transferred in its entirety to the petitioner, a claimant, by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. A non-claimant respondent, who occupied one of the shops, successfully challenged this transfer before the Settlement Commissioner, who ordered the shop in the respondent's possession to be transferred to him instead. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged this order through a writ petition in the High Court and a subsequent Letters Patent Appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the core legal question was whether the Settlement Commissioner's order, which sought to equitably distribute the property between the claimant and non-claimant occupants, warranted judicial interference. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement Commissioner's order was eminently just and fair, reflecting a reasonable exercise of discretion in property settlement matters. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the lower court's decision to uphold the Settlement Commissioner's order.
- Does the Settlement Commissioner have the authority to modify a transfer order to equitably distribute property between a claimant and a non-claimant?
- Is a decision by a Settlement Commissioner to transfer a portion of a property to an occupant subject to interference if found to be just and fair?
ORDER
1. ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The dispute in this petition relates to a composite property which had two shops on the ground-floor and a 'chobara' on the first-floor. One of the shops was with the petitioner and the other was in the occupation of Abdul Aziz, respondent No,2. The petitioner was a claimant while Abdul Aziz was a non-claimant. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the entire property to the petitioner. Abdul Aziz filed an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner but without any success. He then filed a revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner. The learned Settlement Commissioner held that the shop in possession of Abdul Aziz could conveniently be transferred to him. He made an order accordingly. The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of the Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. He then filed a Letters Patent Appeal which too failed. He now seeks leave to appeal.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are of the opinion that the order of the Settlement Commissioner was eminently just and fair. We therefore, do not think that this is a fit case for interference by this Court. Leave is refused.