Mst. BALQIS BEGUM vs KARIM BAKHSH and another
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, concerning the transfer of a disputed property situated in Ramnagar, Lahore. The core legal question involves the challenge to the concurrent findings of fact regarding the nature of the property and the transfer made by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner in favor of a claimant over a non-claimant, alongside the issue of laches. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit, noting the presence of laches and that the matter stands conclusively settled by the concurrent findings of fact that the property was residential and validly transferred to a claimant. The court established the principle that concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities regarding the character of a property, combined with substantial delay (laches), preclude interference by the superior courts.
- Whether concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities regarding the nature of a property can be interfered with?
- Does unexplained delay and laches bar the grant of leave to appeal in property settlement matters?
- Can a non-claimant successfully challenge the transfer of a residential property made in favor of a claimant by the Settlement Commissioner?
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJADDID, J.-- This case was taken up on its turn. Counsel for the petitioner was absent; Advocate-on-Record present. The latter submitted that he informed the former that the case was fixed for hearing today. In spite of that the counsel has not turned up. We have not received any request for adjournment from the counsel but the Advocate-on-Record insisted for an A adjournment.
2. ' We are not inclined to do so because the matter pertains to the year 1983.
3. ' So we examined the record called for by order dated 20-1-88, also perused the impugned judgment as well as other relevant orders.
4. Learned Judge as well as Letters Patent Bench of the High Court rightly observed regarding the laches Even, otherwise, the matter stands concluded by finding of fact of the Settlement Commissioner that the property in dispute (SW.III-24-S-8, Ramnagar, Lahore) was meant for residential purposes being situated in a part of the town which was initially residential.
5. ' The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner transferred the entire property to respondent No, 1 on the ground that he was a claimant whereas the other side was a non-claimant.
6. ' It is not a fit case for grant of leave. 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.