Mst. ALLAH RAKHI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER and 3 others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition filed by the petitioner, Mst. Allah Rakhi, regarding the denial of her claim to a portion of property in village Piplan, Tehsil and District Mianwali, under Settlement Scheme No. VII. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the transfer of two specific rooms in a rural building, given her father's prior possession and her own occupancy. The Supreme Court examined the findings of the lower authorities, noting that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had previously transferred three rooms to another party, while the remaining two rooms were transferred to Muhammad Siddique, the original allottee since 1952. The Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error in the findings that Muhammad Siddique was the rightful allottee and that the petitioner's father merely occupied the premises as a family member of the allottee. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the petitioner's possession did not confer an independent right of transfer superior to that of the established allottee.
- Does mere possession of a property under Settlement Scheme No. VII confer an automatic right of transfer?
- Can a family member of an original allottee claim an independent right to transfer of property based on occupancy?
- Is a finding of fact regarding the status of an original allottee subject to interference in leave to appeal proceedings?
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner, as daughter of one Azim-udDin and widow of Fateh, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 8-5 1983 whereby her Constitutional Petition disputing the denial of her of a portion of the property in village Piplan, Tehsil and District Mianwali, under Settlement Scheme No,VII was dismissed.
2. ' The question of transfer of this property under Settlement Scheme No,VII came up before the competent authority/officer for the first time on 15-12-1966. It was found that the building comprised 5 rooms, three of which were in possession of Muhammad Ramzan who was seeking transfer of those rooms. The other two rooms were in possession of the father of the petitioner. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed an order for the transfer of the three rooms to Muhammad Ramzan but made no order with regard to the transfer of the other two rooms. The matter was agitated further and ultimately these two rooms were transferred to Muhammad Siddique because he was found to be its allottee since 7-9-1952. It was also held that Mst. Allah Rakhi was in possession of the room on account of her relationship with Muhammad Siddique. This order had not been interfered with by the High Court.
3. ' Mr. Talib Haider Rizvi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed into service the order, dated 15-12-1966 to establish that the two rooms should have gone to Azim-ud-Din at that time because it being the rural building, the rooms were found to be in possession of Azim-ud-Din.
4. Even in the subsequent impugned order, the possession of Mst. Allah Rakhi as daughter of Azim- ud-Din was accepted and recognised. Her entitlement to get the property transferred was thereby established.
5. There are three reasons appearing in the facts of the case which were made the basis of the transfer in favour of Muhammad Siddique. In the first place the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed in 1966 in favour of Muhammad Ramzan had not the effect of transferring any portion of the property to Azim-ud-Din or any one else, than Muhammad Ramzan. Secondly, when the matter of transfer of the remaining two rooms was taken up, it was found that Muhammad Siddique was its original allottee. Thirdly, a close relationship was found to exist between Muhammad Siddique and Azim-ud-Din and the position of Azim-ud-Din was held to be as member of the family of Muhammad Siddique.
6. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to successfully demonstrate that any of these facts which had been made the basis is erroneous or faulty. ' Hence, leave to appeal is refused.