NAWAB KHAN vs Mst. HAJRA BEGUM AND Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of an evacuee house under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. The core legal question was whether the settlement authorities failed to apply their mind to the divisibility of the subject house. The Supreme Court held that the contention was factually incorrect, as the record clearly demonstrated that the settlement authorities had indeed considered the question of divisibility and inspected the spot. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that where the record reflects due application of mind by administrative authorities regarding the division of evacuee properties, writ interference on the ground of non-application of mind is unwarranted.
- Whether settlement authorities failed to apply their mind to the question of divisibility of an evacuee house?
- Can a writ petition be maintained on grounds that are contrary to the record of the settlement proceedings?
- Section 2, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The dispute is in relation to the transfer of an evacuee house under the Displaced Persons (Com--pensation and Rehabilitation) Act.
2. The Settlement authorities in exercise of the power conferred by section 2 of the Act divided the house and transferred a portion to Nawab Khan, petitioner, and the rest of the house to Mst. Hajran Begum, respondent, as independent residential units. Dissatisfied the petitioner moved the High Court in writ jurisdiction contending inter alia that the house was in fact indivisible and. The Settlement authorities had failed to apply their mind to this question. The contention was contrary to the record. In grounds Nos. 8 & 9 of the revision petition before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner the petitioner had urged "8. That the learned D. S. C. Vide his order dated 1st April 1961, decided the case, on remand, afresh on merits, after hearing the parties and seeing the spot personally. Con--sequent to the judgment of D. S. C., the house was divided and as such the portion from ground floor marked "A" in the Exh.
3. Was given to Nawab Khan, the petitioner and the portion from the ground floor marked "B" in the Exh. Was given to Mst. Hajran Begum, the respondent. As regards the first floor of the house, the learned D. S. C. Agreed to the division already made by virtue of "the occupa--tion of the contestants". The learned D. S. C. In his judgment specifically opined that no other division is possible except that which he had made.
9. That the respondent, Mst. Hajran Begum, went in appeal to the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore, who vide his order dated 27th January 1962, set aside the order of learned D. S. C. And disturbed the division with--out rhyme and reason, hence this revision petition."
4. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner on examining these grounds concluded that he found no ground to differ from the findings of Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and observed:- "The claimant should be given preference over a non-claimant especially when the former has asked for the whole property while the non-claimant has only asked for the portion in his possession and which is being transferred to him. Under the circumstances the petition of Mst.
5. Hajran Begum is accepted to the extent that only the portions ordered by the learned Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, will be transferred to her. The petition of Nawab Khan is rejected."
6. The contention that the Settlement authorities had not applied their minds to the question of divisibility of the house was thus factually incorrect.
7. There is no merit in this petition. Dismissed.