BAGGU and 8 others vs ISMAIL
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a civil revision by the High Court, which had affirmed an appellate judgment in a suit for possession of a village site. The core legal question was whether the disputed land was evacuee property, which the petitioners claimed to have acquired ownership of under Settlement Scheme No. VII, or whether it was government property sold to the respondent. The petitioners further contended that the issue of the land's status as evacuee property necessitated a reference to the Custodian Authorities. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had correctly resolved the factual controversy regarding the land's status in favor of the respondent, noting a complete lack of documentary evidence to support the petitioners' claim. Furthermore, the Court held that a reference to the Custodian Authorities is not automatic but requires a prima facie case based on reasonable material, which the petitioners failed to establish. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, affirming the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts.
- Is a reference to the Custodian Authorities regarding the status of land as evacuee property mandatory in every case where such a plea is raised?
- Does a party claiming land as evacuee property under Settlement Scheme No. VII require prima facie evidence to support a request for reference to the Custodian Authorities?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the ownership status of property when no documentary evidence contradicts those findings?
- Settlement Scheme No. VII
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZA1, ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by defendant's side in a suit for possession, against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Civil Revision. It had arisen out of respondent's suit for possession of a village site; which was dismissed by the trial Court.
2. Respondent/plaintiffs appeal was allowed and the appellate judgment was affirmed by the High Court in petitioners' Civil Revision which, as stated above, was dismissed.
3. ' Learned counsel has stated that as against the respondent's case that he had permitted the defendant to occupy the disputed land for a year only, the petitioners' defence was that they being in possession thereof since 1947 and the land being evacuee had become owner automatically under Settlement Scheme No,VII He further stated that the specific contest between the parties was on an additional plea raised from the respondent's side that the land in dispute was not evacuee and that it being Government property had been sold to him while the petitioners' insistence was that it was evacuee property which stood transferred to them.
4. The controversy on fact, as to whether, the land was evacuee or it belonged to the Government and was transferred to the respondent, was resolved by the findings of fact rendered by the two higher Courts in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. No documentary evidence has been relied upon to show otherwise. Learned counsel has tried to rely on two circumstances as favouring the petitioners. One, that the property was not in possession of the respondent from 1947 to 1977 and secondly, that a question having been raised that it was evacuee property reference should have been made to the Custodian Authorities.
5. The first question raised by the learned counsel again relates to the findings of fact. As already noted there is nothing on the record to show that the property was evacuee and for that reason it stood transferred to the petitioners' side under Settlement Scheme No,VII on account of undisputed possession. Regarding reference, suffice it to say that there should be some prima facie, case based on reasonable material to ask fot such relief. When questioned whether there is any material on the basis of which such a reference would at least, prima facie, become necessary, learned counsel answered in the negative.
6. ' In the light of what has been stated above, leave to appeal is refused.