MANGHARAM AND ANOTHER vs THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KHAIRPUR
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a writ petition dismissed by the High Court regarding the transfer of an evacuee property. The petitioners had purchased evacuee shop No. D/384 at a public auction in 1960, and a Permanent Transfer Deed was issued to them in 1962. Subsequently, the predecessor-in-interest of private respondents filed an L.S. Form for the transfer of an attached room, claiming it to be a separate shop. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejected the application, holding it was an integral part of the shop sold to the petitioners. However, on appeal, the Additional Settlement Commissioner held that there were separate tenements and remitted the matter for consideration, a view affirmed in revision by the Settlement Commissioner. The High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petition on the ground that the dispute involved a question of fact concluded by concurrent findings. The Supreme Court held that the case was rightly decided by the High Court based on findings of fact reached within the jurisdiction of the settlement authorities, and consequently dismissed the petition.
- Whether the question of identification of a property sold at a public auction constitutes a question of fact?
- Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by settlement authorities be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether an attached room can be treated as a separate tenement for transfer under settlement laws?
1. ' MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-On 19-11-1960 evacuee shop bearing No, D/384 situate in Pano Akil, District Sukkur, was. Sold at public auction to the-petitioners herein for Rs, 1,200 against reserve price of Rs, 1,800. The auction was later confirmed and on payment of full price, P. T. D. Was also issued to them on 22-1-1962. One Syed Akbar Ali Shah, a local, since deceased and predecessor-in-interest of respondents 3 to 7 herein, was, in occupation of the shop. The petitioners gave him a notice informing, him of the transfer of the shop in their favour and demanding rent from him. Rs, 40 per mensem. .
2. ' On 19-2-1968, Akbar Ali Shah filed L. S. Form for the transfer of the room attached to the shop transferred to tee petitioners, on the ground that, it was a separate shop. The D. S. C. After spot inspection vide order dated 30-6-1969 found that the room for which Akbar Ali Shah had filed L. S. Form was an integral part of the shop sold to the petitioners. Accordingly, the L. S. Form filed by Akbar Ali Shah was rejected. On appeal by Akbar Ali Shah, the Additional Settlement Commissioner after examination of the record and inspection of the spot, came to a contrary conclusion. By order dated 22-5-1971, he found that the shop sold by auction to the petitioners was D-384/2 and that there was a separate tenement D-384/1 indicated as G-1 which was also small sliop and further that what was-really auctioned to the petitioner was D-384/2 which was G-2, and that G-1 was still available for transfer. On this finding, the Additional Settlement Commissioner remitted the case to the D. S. C. To consider the L. S. Form in respect of shop G-1. Against the above order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, the petitioners filed a revision which was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 5-2-1972 and confirmed the finding of the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the additional ground that the reserve price of both the shops put together was much higher than Rs, 1,800 which was the reserve price, for D-384/2 only.
3. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioners filed a writ petition No, 167 at 1972 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court at Karachi on 20-6-1974 on the short ground that the question whether what was sold by public auction to the petitioners was the main shop bearing No, D-384/2 or the adjacent room G-1 and G-3 was essentially a question of fact, which stood concluded by the concurrent findings of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner. The petitioners now seek leave to appeal against the above judgment of the High Court.
4. ' After having heard learned counsel for the petitioners at some length we consider that the case was rightly decided by the High Court on the basis of finding of fact reached by the Settlement Commissioner and the Additional Settlement Commissioner on a question which fell within their jurisdiction.
5. ' The petition is accordingly dismissed.