ALI ASGHAR and another vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, (LAND)_A.C. and 2 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that dismissed a Constitutional petition regarding a land settlement dispute. The core legal question involves the determination of whether the petitioners possessed the requisite 109 P.I. Units at the relevant time for adjustment against disputed land. During the proceedings, the petitioners' counsel had previously undertaken to withdraw the petition if they could not satisfy the respondents regarding the availability of these units. Upon hearing, the respondents' counsel acknowledged some ambiguity in the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector regarding the availability of units, suggesting that the matter required clarification by the Settlement Authorities. The Supreme Court, after examining the relevant documents and considering the arguments, determined that the case warranted further examination of the questions raised by both parties. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, directing the parties to file necessary additional documents and ordering the Settlement Department to produce the relevant records for the final disposal of the appeal.
- Does the ambiguity in a lower authority's order regarding the availability of P.I. Units warrant further judicial review by the Supreme Court?
- Can the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when there is a dispute regarding the factual determination of land units available for adjustment?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in a land settlement case, against the dismissal by the High Court, of petitioners' Constitutional petition.
2. ' On the last date of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners confidently asserted that he would satisfy the respondents' side/their counsel that at the relevant/crucial time the petitioner did have 109 P.I. Units which required to be adjusted. He had also then stated that if he failed to satisfy the learned counsel, he would not press the petition.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners is not present today. The case has been heard in presence of learned A.O.R. Of the petitioners. When the learned counsel for the respondent was asked as to whether the assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioners was correct and if not whether he was able to make a categorical statement; that the said number of units or lesser (or more than that number of units), were not available to the petitioner at the relevant time, he answered that in so far as the reading of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner/Collector (which is one of the disputed decisions), no units of the petitioners' side were left to be satisfied. However, to be fair to him he candidly stated that there is some amount of confusion in the last part of the said order of the Assistant Commissioner which can only be clarified by the petitioners making reference to the Settlement Authorities. He further undertook that if the Settlement Authorities agree that the petitioners' side was correct in its assertion he would then submit that instead of dislodging the respondents from the land in dispute the petitioners should be accommodated somewhere else.
4. ' After some hearing and examination of the relevant documents, we consider it a fit case to examine the questions raised by the counsel for the parties and also those raised in this petition.
5. Leave to appeal, therefore, is granted.
6. ' Security Rs,5,000.
7. ' The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all additional documents which would be necessary for disposal of appeal. Settlement Department shall make representation with record.