CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and others vs MUHAMMAD YAMIN and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner and other settlement authorities against a judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 8-3-1981. The High Court had accepted a constitutional petition filed by Muhammad Yamin and others, declaring that an order issued by the Deputy Secretary (Urban) on 20-7-1977, which categorized a portion of property located at Kabir Street, Urdu Bazar, Lahore, as available for disposal under a new scheme, was passed without lawful authority. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioners argued that the High Court failed to correctly appreciate the legal and factual position, asserting that settlement authorities possessed the requisite jurisdiction to dispose of residual property and that only one shop had been transferred to the respondents. The Supreme Court reviewed the findings of the High Court, noting that the High Court had already duly considered and rejected these contentions. Finding no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioners, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, thereby upholding the High Court's decision that the impugned order was unlawful.
- Does the Deputy Secretary (Urban) have the lawful authority to declare a portion of property as available for disposal under a new scheme?
- Do settlement authorities possess the jurisdiction to dispose of residual property?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.--Chief Settlement Commissioner; The Secretary (Urban) to the M.B.R. (S & R)
2. Wing Punjab, Lahore and Member Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing) Lahore, have impugned the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 8-3-1981. The High Court by means of the impugned judgment accepted the Constitution Petition filed by Muhammad Yamin and others and held that the order of the Deputy Secretary (Urban) dated 20-7-1977 was without lawful authority.
3. ' The Deputy Secretary (Urban) had directed that the portion on top of Property No,S-III-3-S-2, situated at Kabir Street, Urdu Bazar, Lahore, was available and that was to be disposed of under the new scheme.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the High Court did not properly appreciate the correct legal and factual position. The legal position was that the Settlement Authorities had the necessary jurisdiction to dispose of any residual property whereas the factual position was that only one shop had been transferred to the respondents.
5. ' This aspect was duly considered by the High Court and the contention was repelled. The reasons given by the High Court call for no interference.
6. ' This petition has no merits. Dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.