Mst. LAQEEUN NISA And Others vs Mst. SAEED AKHTAR And Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal regarding the allotment of urban evacuee land. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners, claiming as informers and allottees, possessed a superior right to the disputed land over respondent No.1, whose prior allotment was cancelled due to acquisition by the Lahore Improvement Trust, and whether the High Court could interfere with the Settlement Commissioner's factual preference in writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners had no statutory right to claim allotment on the basis of being informers at the relevant time, and the Settlement Commissioner's reasoned choice favoring respondent No.1 was a question of fact not open to interference in writ jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact by settlement authorities regarding the choice of land allotment, made with proper reasons, are immune from interference under constitutional writ jurisdiction, and informers possess no inherent statutory right to claim land allotments unless provided by law.
- Whether informers have a statutory right to claim the allotment of evacuee land without express legal provision?
- Can the High Court interfere in writ jurisdiction with a finding of fact regarding the choice of land allotment made by a Settlement Commissioner?
- Does an allottee whose land is cancelled due to acquisition have a preferred claim for adjustment by the settlement authorities?
ORDER
RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This is a petition filed by Mst. Laqeeun Nisa and others petitioners, seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.180 of 1970 dismissing their appeal.
2. The petitioners claim to be informers and want urban land measuring 19 marlas and 175 sq. Ft. To be allotted in their favour; whereas the same land has been allotted to Mst. Saeed Akhtar, respondent No.1 in lieu of one kanal area cancelled by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on 22-1-1969 out of some other land allotted to her, on the ground that the said land formed part of the road which had been acquired by the Lahore Improvement Trust.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that his clients being both allottees and informers had a superior right of allotment to the disputed land and the orders of the Settlement Officers and of the learned Judges of the High Court are illegal. .
4. There is no dispute that at the relevant time, the petitioners had no statutory right to claim the allotment of any evacuee land on the basis of their being informers. As regards their claim to the allotment of the disputed land, the learned Settlement Commissioner chose to prefer Mst. Saeed Akther, respondent No.1, after discussing the claims of both the parties and giving reasons for his choice. This being a question of fact, was not open to interference in the writ jurisdiction. In these circumstances, there is no merit in this petition, which is dismissed.