NNJUMAN DATA GANJ BAKHSH ALI HAJVERI AND DARBAR BABA QASIM SAIN
This matter concerns a dispute over the ownership of land, originally claimed by the respondents based on an alleged 1956 transfer order from the Deputy Rehabilitation/Settlement Commissioner. Following an initial High Court remand, a notified officer conducted inquiries and concluded that the respondents' documents were forged and the land was State land rather than evacuee property. A learned Single Judge of the High Court subsequently set aside this finding, declaring it illegal and directing the authorities to record the respondents as owners. The petitioners challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the notified officer acted within his competence under the remand order to examine the genuineness of the documents and that the High Court improperly interfered with findings of fact. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the contentions raised regarding the scope of the remand order and the propriety of the High Court's interference with the notified officer's factual findings required detailed consideration. The operation of the High Court judgment was suspended pending the final outcome.
- Is a notified officer competent to examine the genuineness of an alleged transfer order when a High Court remand order permits the parties to raise questions of fact and law?
- Can a High Court interfere with the factual findings of a notified officer in a constitutional petition absent a showing of misreading of evidence or failure to consider material evidence?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---Ziledar and eleven others, hereinafter referred to as the contesting respondents, filed a Constitution petition in the High Court alleging that the land in dispute had been permanently transferred in their favour against their claims by an order dated 24-2-1956 passed by the Deputy Rehabilitation/Settlement Commissioner and that by an order dated 26-7- 1987 the Additional Revenue Commissioner had refused to implement the same. A learned Single Judge in the High Court allowed the petition and remanded the matter to the notified officer, for a fresh decision, permitting the parties to raise as many questions of fact and law as they preferred before him. The said officer made inquiries and came to the conclusion that the land in dispute had never been allotted or confirmed to the contesting respondents and that the orders upon which they were relying were forged. Further, the land in dispute was State land and not evacuee property and as such did not form part of the compensation pool. The contesting respondents filed another Constitution petition to challenge the order of the notified officer. A learned Single Judge accepted the Constitution petition and declared the order of notified officer to be illegal, without lawful authority and without jurisdiction. He further directed the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Settlement Commissioner to incorporate the names of the contesting respondents in the column of ownership of Jamabandi and restored the possession of the land in dispute to them. From the order of the learned Single Judge three petitions for special leave to appeal have been filed.
2. In support of these petitions it is contended that in view of the open order of remand made by the High Court in the earlier petition the notified officer was competent to examine the legality or genuineness of the order dated 24-2-1956 allegedly passed by the Deputy Rehabilitation/Settlement Commissioner; further, whether the said order was a forged one or genuine raised purely a question of fact and the finding of the notified officer could not be ordinarily interfered with by the learned Single Judge unless it was based on misreading of the evidence or the said officer had failed to take notice of material evidence. In the circumstances the learned Single Judge was not competent to interfere with the finding of a notified officer.
3. These contentions, amongst others, need consideration. Leave to appeal is granted.
4. The operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge will remain suspended during the pendency of the petition.