Mst. ALLAH RAKHI vs SETTLEMEMT COMMISSIONER ETC.
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the transfer of a basement in a composite property by Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities. The core legal question is whether the Settlement Authorities erred in treating the basement as a separate, transferable unit more than a decade after the original transfer order in favor of the petitioner, and whether a respondent who had previously surrendered her rights in the property to her son could legally re-agitate for the transfer of the basement. The petitioner contends that the lower courts' findings were based on a misreading of the evidence and that the basement had already been transferred to her. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, determining that the contentions regarding the misreading of evidence and the legal standing of the respondent to claim the property require a detailed examination. The Court ordered that the stay previously granted shall continue pending the final adjudication of these issues.
- Can Settlement Authorities treat a portion of a property as a separate unit for transfer purposes more than a decade after the original transfer order?
- Does a party who has previously surrendered rights in a property to a third party retain the legal standing to re-agitate for the transfer of a portion of that same property?
- Is a finding by the High Court based on a misreading of evidence subject to reappraisal by the Supreme Court in a petition for leave to appeal?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHFEMA, J,-Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Lahore High Court dated 24-1- 1974 whereby the learned Judge in Chamber dismissed the petitioner's Writ Petition No, 130/R of 1967, she has preferred this petition for special leave to appeal.
2. ' The bone of contention between the parties is basement of a composite property No, SE-33-R-7/B known as 49-Montgomery Road, Lohore, of which different portions were transferred to the parties by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities. A part of the premises was earlier transferred to Mistri Abdul Majid son of Mst. Umar Bibi respondent No, 2 who being dissatisfied with the transfer of the portion in his possession unsuccessfully litigated up to the Supreme Court, his Writ Petition No, 116/R of 1962 as also his appeal before the Supreme Court having been dismissed.
3. ' It was on 29.11-71 in the course of demarcation proceedings between the petitioner and Syed Iqbal Hussain respondent No, 3 a co-transferee of the residential portion, when for the first time the basement in question was transferred by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to Mst. Umar Bibi respondent No, 2 on the assumption that it did not constitute a part of the ground floor.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel firstly, that it was more than a decade after the original transfer order in favour of the petitioner that for the first time the basement in question was treated as a separate unit by the Settlement Authorities whose order was upheld by the High Court contrary to evidence on the record and secondly, that having already surrendered her rights in favour of her son Abdul Majid Mst. Umar Bibi respondent No, 2 could not reagitate for the transfer of the basement which already stood transferred to the petitioner.
5. ' It is argued that the findings are based on misreading of evidence which needs reappraisal.
6. ' Leave is granted to examine the above contentions. Security-Rs, 1,000. Stay shall continue.