ABDUL RASHID AND 3 Others vs MUHAMMAD NAZIR
This matter arises from a petition challenging an order of the High Court remitting a property dispute to the Settlement Commissioner to determine the divisibility of a house occupied by the rival parties since 20th December 1947. Initially, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had drawn lots won by the respondent, but the Additional Settlement Commissioner awarded the entire house to the petitioners on the ground that their verified claim was slightly higher and they occupied the ground floor, concluding the house was indivisible without assigning reasons or referring to the house layout. Higher settlement authorities upheld this view. The petitioners contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court had already determined the house to be divisible. The Supreme Court held that the High Court made no such determination and that the core issue of divisibility remains to be decided by the Settlement Commissioner. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the remand for proper determination of divisibility.
- Whether the High Court determined the house to be divisible in the impugned proceedings?
- Does the issue of the divisibility of a house require determination by the Settlement Commissioner?
- Can settlement authorities award an indivisible property without assigning reasons or consulting the house layout?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The High Court has remitted the case to the Settlement Commissioner to determine the divisibility of the house in the occupation of the parties since 20th December 1947.
2. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner had drawn lots in which the respondent succeeded, but on appeal the Additional Settlement Commissioner disapproved of this course and in the view that the petitioners had an advantage over the respondent in that their verified claim was slightly higher and they were in occupation of the ground floor gave the entire house to them. It was observed that the house was indivisible. No reason was, however, given nor any reference made to the plan or lay out of the house. The higher Settlement Authorities followed suit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the High Court has already held the house to be divisible. We do not find any such determination. The issue has yet to be decided by the Settlement Commissioner.
4. The petition is dismissed.
Cited by 2 cases
- Ahmer and others vs The State 2022 PCRLJ 1279
- ALI HASSAN Versus State 2022 PCrLJN 125