ROSHAN DIN vs ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 10 Other
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of land allotment made in favor of the petitioner, Roshan Din. The petitioner had been allotted land in Sialkot as a Jammu & Kashmir refugee, but subsequent proceedings initiated by private respondents under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, led to a finding by the Additional Settlement Commissioner that the petitioner had obtained the allotment through fraud, as he was not a genuine refugee. The High Court affirmed this finding. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged these concurrent findings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the determination regarding the petitioner's status as a non-refugee was a finding of fact based on the evidence presented before the lower authorities. The Court affirmed the principle that it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact where there is sufficient evidence on record to support the conclusions reached by the lower forums.
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a person's refugee status?
- Does the Additional Settlement Commissioner have the authority to cancel land allotments obtained through fraud?
- Is a finding of fact based on evidence sufficient to sustain the dismissal of a writ petition?
- Section 10, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958
- Section 11, Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958
ORDER
1. QAISAR KHAN, J.-Roshan Din, a resident of Sialkot, got some land allotted in his name in villages Punuwal and Malagarpur of Siaikot Tehsil as Jammu & Kashmir refugee. Noor Din, Nawab Din and Mohammad Bashir submitted an application against him under section 10/11 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 alleging that Roshan Din had obtained the land by fraud as he was not a refugee from Jammu 8t Kashmir. The Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner after recording the evidence of the parties by his order dated 2-9-1976 held that Roshan Din had obtained the land by fraud as ho was not a Jammu 8t Kashmir refugee. He, therefore, cancelled the land from his name, Roshan Din filed a writ petition in the High Court at Lahore against the aforesaid order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) but the learned Judge in the High Court by his order dated 30 9-1976 upheld the finding of tae Additional Settlement Commissioner and dismissed the writ petition.
2. Roshan Din has filed this petition for special leave to appeal. After hearing Mr. Abid Hussain Minto.
3. Advocate for the petitioner and going through the various orders we have come to the conclusion that there is no merit into his petition. The Additional Settlement Commissioner and the High Court both have held in view of the evidence of the parties that the petitioner was not a Jammu & Kashmir refugee. This is a finding of fact and cannot be interfered with in this Court. Furthermore there was enough evidence on file that the petitioner was not a Jammu & Kashmir refugee and in the circumstances this petition is, therefore, dismissed.