Syed HASAN NAWAZ AND OTHERS vs MASOOD AND OTHERS
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, which allowed writ petitions and remanded the case to the Settlement Commissioner for a fresh decision. The dispute pertains to land in the former Federal Area of Karachi allotted under Settlement Scheme No. VI. The petitioners' allotments were initially confirmed, subsequently cancelled due to their lower category status among claimants, restored by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, challenged via writ petitions, remanded, and again mishandled by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on technical grounds rather than determining respective entitlements. The core legal question concerns whether the Additional Settlement Commissioner was bound to inquire into and decide the respective entitlements of rival claimants under the remand directions. The Supreme Court held that the Additional Settlement Commissioner failed to follow previous remand directions and was legally bound to inquire into the respective entitlements and superior categories of the rival claimants. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether an Additional Settlement Commissioner is bound to follow remand directions to inquire into the respective entitlements of rival claimants?
- Can land allotments under Settlement Scheme No. VI be sustained when allottees belong to the lowest category of eligible claimants?
- Whether the Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal when lower authorities fail to determine rival claims on merits?
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALl, J.-The land in dispute situated in the former Federal Area of Karachi was, under Settlement Scheme No, VI, allotted to the petitioners and confirmed in their names on 4-7- 1968. Later on the allotment was cancelled on the objections filed by other claimants that under the Scheme, the petitioners held the lowest category as compared to other eligible claimants. Some of the Survey numbers were allotted to respondent No,
1. The petitioners thereupon filed separate appeals before the Additional Settlement Commissioner who restored their allotments. The legality of these orders was disputed by the respondents by separate-Writ Petitions in the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan.
' Both the Writ Petitions were allowed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court and he gave the following directions:- "As a result of the arguments which went on the whole yesterday, all the learned counsel agree that the order of the Additional Settlement. Commissioner (Land) dated 30.8-1969 be quashed. The case is therefore remanded to the Settlement Commissioner and the parties to the petition will be entitled to press their entitlements which will be decided according to law under Scheme No, 6."
' The Additional Settlement Commissioner failed to carry out the directions given by the High Court and disposed of the matter on a purely technical view. He held that one of the rival claimants, Syed All Akhtar Jafri, respondent No, 2, since deceased, had omitted to file an appeal against the allotments in favour of the petitioners herein and that the allotment in favour of Moosa, respondent No, 1, was made without jurisdiction, On these findings, the Additional Settlement Commissioner concluded thus:- "The matter would, therefore, stand at a stage where the three appellants remain legal allottees of lands in question and the Khatonies and the R. L. 2 issued in their favour continue to remain legal documents, of title and so also mutation in their favour in the record of rights, if any, issued in favour of Moosa which is ab initio void being duplicate allotment for the same land, be cancelled. If any mutation has been done in his favour in -.The record of rights, the same also be cancelled."
' Aggrieved by the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed Writ Petitions Nos. 135 and 384 of 1972 which have been allowed by a learned Single Judge and the case remanded' to the Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision for the reasons that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had failed to record his own findings, in accordance with the directions given earlier by the High Court.
The petitioners seek leave to appeal on the ground that the land in dispute was allotted and confirmed in their names earlier than the allotment made in favour of respondent No,
1. The learned counsel has, however, been unable to meet the ground on which the allotments in favour of the petitioners were cancelled namely that under Settlement Scheme No, VI, they were in the lowest category of eligible claimants. We also concur in the view that the Additional Settlement Commissioner was bound to hold an inquiry into the respective entitlements of the rival claimants and to decide which of them belonged to the superior category.
' We thus see no ground to grant leave to appeal. The petition is dismissed.