GHULAM MOHY UD DIN vs MANZOOR ELAHI AND Other
This appeal by special leave arises from an order of the High Court dismissing the appellant's letters patent appeal concerning the transfer of a disputed shop in Rawalpindi. The core legal question involves whether the High Court and appellate forums erred in appreciating concurrent factual findings of settlement authorities regarding possession and transfer eligibility under settlement laws. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and the Settlement Commissioner, which concluded that the appellant's claim form entry was an interpolation and that he was never in possession of the property, were based on proper appreciation of evidence and could not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, additional documents not produced before the settlement authorities or the High Court cannot be introduced for the first time before the apex court. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact based on evidence by specialized tribunals will not be disturbed in writ jurisdiction, and fresh evidence cannot be introduced at the appellate stage without prior foundational record.
- Can concurrent findings of fact by settlement authorities be interfered with in writ jurisdiction?
- Whether fresh evidence not produced before the lower tribunals or the High Court can be allowed to be introduced at the Supreme Court stage?
- Are questions regarding possession and interpolation in settlement registers amenable to interference under constitutional jurisdiction?
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED J.-This appeal by special leave of this Court is from an order of a Division Bench of the then High Court of West ; Pakistan, Lahore, dismissing the appellant's letters patent appeal.
2. The dispute between the parties is over shop No. 298, Chowk Banni, Rawalpindi.
3. The appellant said that he was a displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir. He claimed that he had been in possession of the shop and had filed K N C S Form for its transfer. Nevertheless, lie complained, the shop was put up to auction on the 28th of February 1965, under the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, and it was purchased by respondent Manzoor Elahi.
4. In the appeal filed by the appellant the Additional Settlement Commissioner had personally checked the register and found that entry regarding the submission of a form by the appellant was an interpolation.
5. Later on in revision the Settlement Commissioner maintained this finding of the Additional Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Commissioner further found that the appellant was never in possession of the shop. In support of this finding the Settlement Commissioner pointed out that in the list of the property at the auction the shop appeared to be in possession of Nooruddin and Ferozeuddin. Furthermore that in his application for deleting the shop from the auction list the appellant stated that he was an allottee of the shop and paid rent for it. There was, however, nothing to show that the shop was ever allotted to him or he paid rent for it.
6. In his writ petition before the High Court the appellant sought to produce for the first time two receipts in support of his claim that he had paid rent for the shop. The learned Single Judge of the High Court rightly refused to permit the appellant to do so. It may be mentioned here that the receipts are not on record and never placed before the Settlement Commissioner.
7. The learned counsel appearing in support of the appeal before us again sought to refer to the aforesaid receipts. Furthermore he sought to refer to certain survey register and survey list, which too had never been placed before the Settlement authority or before the High Court. Of course we did not permit the learned counsel to do so.
8. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above the High Court rightly refused to interfere with the finding of the Settlement authorities and the impugned order of the Settlement Commissioner. The learned Judges of the High Court observed that the questions raised were questions of fact and they were based on proper appreciation of the evidence.
9. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.