FAZAL DIN vs The SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER And Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which declined to interfere with the transfer of a disputed property by Settlement authorities. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, Fazal Din, was entitled to the transfer of the house in question, bearing No. B-II-5/8-64 in Okara, based on his claim of prior possession, as opposed to the respondent, Muhammad Ibrahim, to whom the property was transferred due to his occupation of a major portion of the house and the indivisible nature of the property. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of prior possession. Despite being granted an adjournment to produce certified copies of the relevant record to prove his prior possession, the petitioner failed to do so after a significant lapse of time. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Settlement authorities and the High Court regarding the transfer of the property.
- Does the failure to produce certified copies of the record to substantiate a claim of prior possession justify the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal?
- Can a High Court's refusal to interfere with a property transfer by Settlement authorities be challenged when the petitioner fails to provide evidence of their claim?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, C. J.-.The Settlement authorities have, in preference to Fazal Cain, petitioner, transferred the house in dispute bearing No. B-II-5/8-64, situated in Okara, District Sahiwal, to Muhammad Ibrahim, respondent herein, on the basis of his occupation of a major portion of the house. It has further been held that the house is indivisible. The High Court has declined to interfere with the transfer in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction.
2. The petitioner has applied for leave to appeal contending Inter alia that he is in prior possession of a part of the house. As there was no evidence on the record to this effect. The petitioner was granted an adjournment on 31st July 1975, to a date in office for filing certified copies of the relevant record.
3. 7 he matter has now been taken up after expiry of 3 months and 20 days but the requisite copies have not been filed. Indeed Mr. A. R. Shaukat expressed his inability to produce certified copies from the Settlement record showing the prior possession of the petitioner.
4. In the circumstances the petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- GHULAM HUSSAIN and another vs NAWAB ALI and another 1993 MLD 2374