Mst. INAYAT BIBI And Others vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the High Court dismissing the petitioners' writ petition, which challenged the cancellation of their land allotment by the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The core legal question was whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner was a notified officer competent to cancel the allotment alleged to be bogus under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly found the officer to be competent, and further declined to entertain a new contention regarding the sufficiency of the record that was not raised before the High Court. The petition was accordingly dismissed, establishing the principle that new factual contentions not raised in the lower court will not be entertained at the leave to appeal stage.
- Whether an Additional Settlement Commissioner is competent to cancel a land allotment under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958?
- Can a contention regarding the record not raised before the High Court be entertained by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
- Section 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act 1958
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The- petitioners in this petition for special leave to appeal are the successors-in-interest of one Jamadar who obtained an allotment of land in village Bhuller Mairewala of Tehsil Pasrur of District Sialkot. On a Mukhbari application filed by respondents Nos. 2 to 9 under section 10/ 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the Additional Settlement Commissioner cancelled the allotment -on the ground that it was a bogus one. The petitioners challenged the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner in writ jurisdiction before the High Court. From the order of the High Court it appears that the only ground advanced by them was that the Additional Settlement Commissioner was not a notified officer and as such he was not competent to make the impugned order. The High Court examined this plea and found that the said ground was without any merit. Accordingly, it dismissed the writ petition. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that the finding of the Additional Settlement Commissioner that the allotment was a bogus one was not supported by the relevant record. It is to be noticed that this contention was not raised before the High Court, We are not therefore prepared to entertain it. The petition is 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.