Pakistan Case LawMAHNI And 2 Others Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Another
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petition against the order of the Settlement Authorities regarding the cancellation of an auction. The dispute concerns land measuring 25 kanals and 10 marlas, which was auctioned to the petitioners after being recovered as Darya Burd land. Upon an application by villagers alleging a lack of publicity and proclamation for the auction, the Deputy Commissioner cancelled the auction proceedings. The High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petition, holding that the adequacy of publicity is a question of fact not warranting interference in constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court considered the record and concluded that the finding of fact was properly reached by the Deputy Commissioner after appreciating the evidence, and no legal defect existed in the findings of the courts below. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
- Whether the question of proper publicity and proclamation of an auction constitutes a question of fact?
- Can the High Court interfere with a finding of fact regarding auction proceedings in its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal against concurrent factual findings of lower forums regarding auction cancellation?
ORDER
S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 18-12-1985, whereby their writ petition against the order, dated 17-7- 1967, passed by the Settlement Authorities, was dismissed.
The land in dispute measuring 25 kanals 10 marlas was 'Darya Burd' land and was not in possession of any person. After its recovery in 1976 the same was auctioned by the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner which was purchased by the petitioners. The villagers moved an application before the Deputy Commissioner for the setting aside of the auction proceedings on the ground that no publicity or proclamation with regard to the holding of auction was made. The Deputy Commissioner while considering the application, cancelled the auction in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners tiled writ petition in the High Court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court after considering the case of the parties came to the conclusion that the question whether there was proper publicity or not is a question of fact and thus finding no violation of the provision of relevant law in the order of the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the record of the case as well as findings of the Courts below. We have come to the conclusion that the finding of fact involved in this case has concluded by the learned Deputy Commissioner after appreciation of the evidence on record. The learned High Court also did not deem it a fit case for any interference in its Constitutional jurisdiction. We do not find any legal defect in the findings of the Courts below to consider this petition for the grant of leave. Resultantly, it is dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Saad Saood Jan2,559 judgments
- S. Usman Ali Shah326 judgments