NOOR MUHAMMAD AND 8 Others vs CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND 8 Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court regarding the allotment of property under settlement laws. The core legal question was whether the mode of partition of property, as determined by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, is subject to judicial review under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court when the divisibility of the property itself is not contested. The Supreme Court held that once it is conceded that the High Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the division of property, the specific mode of partition cannot be challenged or reviewed through a writ petition. The Court found that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had exercised his discretion properly in allocating the upper floor to the petitioners and the ground floor to the respondents, given the petitioners' limited prior occupation of only one room. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that administrative discretion in property partition, absent jurisdictional error, is not amenable to judicial review.
- Can the mode of partition of property by the Chief Settlement Commissioner be challenged under writ jurisdiction if the divisibility of the property is not in dispute?
- Is the exercise of discretion by the Chief Settlement Commissioner in property allotment subject to judicial review under Article 98 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962?
- Article 98, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-Mr. Iqbal Qazi concedes that c the divisibility of the property in dispute was not open to question before the High Court in writ jurisdiction. He, how--ever, contends that in allotting the upper floor to the petitioners the Chief Settlement Commissioner did not take into considera--tion the material circumstances that the petitioners were allottees and in prior occupation of the ground floor.
2. Once it is conceded and rightly so that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to interfere with the division of the property, we fail to see how the mode of partition can be the subject-matter of a judicial review under Article 98 of the Constitution. The petitioners were in occupation of only one room on the ground floor. The Chief Settlement Commissioner in the circumstances of the case exercised his discretion properly in transferring to the petitioners the upper floor and giving the ground floor to the respondents at Nos. 6 to 8.
3. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.