ALLAH BAKHSH vs NIZAM DIN AND 2 OTHERS
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a writ petition challenging an order of the Settlement Commissioner (exercising powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner), which divided an evacuee house into three separate portions and transferred each portion to one of three claimants in long-standing possession. The legal questions before the court concerned whether the High Court properly declined to interfere with the division of the property under writ jurisdiction and whether a delayed application for transfer could be accepted. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that upon division by the competent settlement authority, each portion constituted an independent house, making the petitioner ineligible to claim more than one portion. The Court further affirmed that the Settlement Commissioner possessed jurisdiction to consider belated transfer forms pursuant to Settlement Scheme No. 1 and established judicial precedent. Consequently, the High Court rightly declined to disturb a just and proper division in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
- Can the propriety of the division of an evacuee property by the Settlement Commissioner be interfered with under writ jurisdiction?
- Does the Chief Settlement Commissioner have jurisdiction to accept or consider a belated form for the transfer of evacuee property after the expiry of the prescribed time?
- Can a new plea or ground of fact be permitted to be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court if it was not raised before the High Court?
- Settlement Scheme No. 1
ORDER
1. ' SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioner is a claimant mid he has be aggrieved by the order of the Settlement Commissioner, dated the 25th October, 1965, dividing the evacuee house in dispute into three portions a transferring each portion to each of the three claimants already in h occupation. In dividing toe house the principle followed by the Settle me Commissioner evidently was to benefit the largest number of claimants a to avoid throwing out of the house any claimant. All the three claim= appeared to have been in possession of their respective portions for a co severable number of years. The petitioner was in possession of a portion the ground floor, claimant Abdul Shakoor respondent was in possession a room and a part of the verandah on the same floor, while another claim Nizm Din respondent was in possession of the entire first floor and a room and some of the portion of the ground floor.
2. ' The petitioner's writ petition challenging the validity of the order of t Settlement Commissioner, dated the 25th of October, 1965, was right dismissed on the grounds that the house having already been divided by t Settlement Commissioner (he was acting as a Chief Settlement Commissioned into three portions each one of them became a separate house and petitioner was therefore not entitled to more than one house and to propriety of the division could not be challenged in the writ jurisdiction The High Court also found that the division was a just and proper one the circumstances of the case. We agree with this view of the High Court and reject similar contentions repeated before us.
3. ' It has been contended further that respondent Abdul Shakoor had Mach a belated application for transfer and, therefore, he should not have beer sferred any portion of the house. The contention has no force. Under a graph of Settlement Scheme No, 1 it was the duty of the Deputy lament Commissioner to consider the claims of all other persons "who have applied" for transfer. This required consideration of the claim of said respondent, who might have applied and did not apply till then. Thermoses in the case of Altaf Hussain etc. v. Chief Settlement Comstoner (1), this Court has held that the Chief Settlement Commissioner no jurisdiction to refuse to accept the form for transfer of the property ought the time fixed for filing it had expired.
4. ' It was next sought to be contended that Abdul Shakoor had already n allotted a house and he could not be given another house. This point never raised before the High Court and could not, therefore, be permitted raised for the first time in this Court.
5. ' We find no reason to interfere with the order of the High Court, and petition is accordingly dismissed.
(1) PLD 1965 SC 68.
Cited by 6 cases
- MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM and others vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA and others 1991 MLD 2160
- INAMUL HAQ vs SIDDIQL'e MUHAMMAD AND Other 1983 SCMR 1009
- Dr. SADAQAT ULLAH vs ABDUL MAJID And Other 1986 SCMR 437
- HIRJINA & Co. (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS 1976 PLD Karachi 1110
- HIRJINA & CO. (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHIAND 2 Other 1976 PLD Karachi 1110
- ALLAH BAKHSH vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND 3 Other 1976 SCMR 275