KHUDA BAKHSH vs FATEH KHAN AND Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the transfer of an evacuee property (house No. 43, village Padhrar) to respondent No. 1. The petitioner alleged prior possession since 1947, interrupted by police occupation, and claimed illegal dispossession by the respondent. The core legal question was whether the Settlement authorities erred in fact-finding regarding the respondent's possession of the property as of January 1, 1961, which was the qualifying date for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. 7. The Supreme Court held that the Settlement authorities' findings were supported by evidence, including official records from the Patwari and the register of Scheme No. 7, which confirmed the respondent's occupation and purchase of rights from the original allottee. The Court affirmed that the High Court correctly declined to interfere with these concurrent findings of fact. The principle laid down is that where Settlement authorities have based their conclusions on a proper examination of official records and evidence, such findings of fact are not subject to reappraisal in writ jurisdiction.
- Can the High Court interfere with findings of fact made by Settlement authorities when those findings are supported by official records?
- Does the occupation of an evacuee property on January 1, 1961, constitute a valid basis for transfer under Settlement Scheme No. 7?
- Is a purchase of rights from an original allottee sufficient to establish a claim to evacuee property?
- Settlement Scheme No. 7
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The dispute between the parties is in respect of house No. 43, situate in village Padhrar, Tehsil Khushab, District Sarhodha which was an evacuee property. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that he came into possession of the house in 1947 and continued to possess the same until 1960, when it was taken over by the police for setting up a temporary police post in the village. It is further alleged that the possession of the house in dispute was restored to the petitioner by the police after the closure of the police post in the year 1962. He lent out the house in dispute to one Ghulam Abbas, a Dhewar of village Padhrar, for residential purposes. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 forcibly occupied the house in dispute and threw out the said Ghulam Abbas from it.
2. Respondent No. 1 claimed that he has come in possession of the house in dispute through Ghulam Muhammad to whom he paid Rs. 120 and purchased his right in the house in dispute. This contention was accepted by the learned Assistant Settlement Commissioner and the property in dispute was transferred to respondent No. 1 on the 14th November, 1969. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, which was dismissed on the 12th May, 1970. A revision petition filed by him, was also dismissed on the 12th January, 1971. The petitioner then brought Writ Petition No. 218/11 of 1971, in the Lahore High Court, which was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge on the 15th September, 1972.
3. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order. Mr. Muhammad Hussain Chaudhry, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the finding of the Settlement authorities that the house in dispute was in occupation of respondent No. 1 on the 1st January, 1961 and that it was rightly transferred to him under Settlement Scheme No. 7, is based on misreading of the evidence produced on the record. He further contended that the High Court has failed to appreciate the evidence and has not arrived at a right conclusion. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. There is evidence on the record that the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Jauharabad, inspected the record himself before deciding the case. Patwari halqa was summoned along with the record. The register of property brought by him showed that the house in question, in 1958, was in occupation of the Police Department. The register of Scheme No. 7, prepared in 1964-65, shows that the house in question was in occupation of Fateh Khan respondent No. 1 and the original allotment order dated the 23rd June, 1960, was shown in the name of one Ghulam Muhammad. It is also proved on the record that respondent No. 1 has purchased this house from Ghulam Muhammad on the 21st December, 1960, vide receipt at page 7/8 of the file of the allotment of the house. On this evidence, the Settlement authorities came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 was in occupation of the house in dispute on the 1st January, 1961. Iii our opinion, the finding of the learned Settlement authorities was correct ands the High Court has rightly accepted this finding. There is no force in the petition. The petition is dismissed.