ABDUL SHAKOOR AND 8 Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an unsuccessful writ petition before the High Court of West Pakistan, challenging the orders of the Settlement authorities who decided to transfer a disputed property in favor of the respondent, Ghulam Rasool. The core legal question centered on whether the petitioners or the respondent had reconstructed the premises after it was burnt, and whether the High Court could interfere with findings of fact recorded by departmental authorities. The Supreme Court held that the question of who reconstructed the building was purely one of fact within the competent jurisdiction of the Settlement authorities, and the High Court rightly declined to interfere. Furthermore, the contention regarding an initial joint application was untenable given that both parties subsequently made statements claiming exclusive transfer. The Court affirmed that concurrent factual determinations based on evidence after remands will not be disturbed, and accordingly dismissed the petition for special leave to appeal, laying down the principle that factual controversies resolved by administrative authorities fall outside the scope of constitutional writ jurisdiction.
- Whether the question of who was responsible for the reconstruction of a building is a question of fact within the jurisdiction of Settlement authorities?
- Can the High Court interfere in its writ jurisdiction with concurrent findings of fact recorded by departmental authorities?
- Does an initial joint application for the transfer of property preclude parties from subsequently claiming exclusive transfer?
1. S. A. RAHMAN, J.-The main contention around which the dispute between the parties centered in this case was as to whether the petitioners Abdul Shakoor and others, or the respondent Ghulam Rasool had constructed the premises after it had been burnt. The Settlement authorities found eventually in favour of Ghulam Rasul, and decided to transfer the property to him. The petitioners moved the High Court of West Pakistan in writ jurisdiction unsuccessfully against the order passed by the Settlement authorities. They now seek Special Leave to Appeal.
2. The question as to who was responsible for the reconstruc--tion of the building, was one of fact and therefore, within the; jurisdiction of the departmental authorities to decide. It was mainly on this ground that the High Court declined to interfere in this case, and in our opinion, rightly. The learned Counsel, for the petitioners, Mr. Gul Nawaz Ahmad Khan, tried to argue that the Settlement authorities had not gone into the allegations made by his clients to the effect that some of the documents produced in this case, had interpolations and forgeries in the writings evidenced by them. We are unable to accede to this contention as correct. There were several remands in this case and eventually, after considering all the evidence produced by the parties, the Settlement authorities gave their decision.
3. Learned counsel contended in the alternative that initially the disputants had put in a joint form for transfer of the pro--perty to them, and therefore, the property should have been given to them jointly. This claim is untenable, as it is clear that after the submission of that form, both the parties made statements before the Settlement authorities claiming exclusive transfer of the property.
4. We see no ground for grant of Special Leave to Appeal and dismiss the petition.