NASRULLAH KHAN and anothers vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND), FAISALABAD and others
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners challenging concurrent findings of the settlement authorities was dismissed. The core legal question involved whether the settlement authorities and the High Court correctly evaluated the factual controversy regarding the allotment and possession of specific land parcels, namely Killas Nos. 5 and 6. The Supreme Court held that since the question of fact had been properly decided by the Settlement Authority on the basis of available material and confirmed by the lower forums, no interference was warranted. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on record regarding land allotment and possession will not be disturbed under constitutional jurisdiction unless a jurisdictional defect or misreading of evidence is satisfactorily established.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by settlement authorities regarding land allotment?
- Can a party challenge a settlement department's finding solely on the basis of a Jamabandi entry without proving valid allotment and actual possession?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
ORDER
' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 11th May, 1999 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby writ petition filed by petitioners has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that Ghulam Ghaus alias Ghaus Muhammad father of petitioner was allotted 50 Kanals. 1 Marla land:-in Square No,21, Killa Nos. 1, 2, 3.
4. 5 and 6 in the year 1956 against his claim of 510 PIUs. After the allotment, statedly he sold Killas Nos.1 to 4 whereas Killas Nos.5 and 6 measuring 15 Kanals and 2 Marlas remained with him being part of allotment order. It is alleged that one Fazal Muhammad father of respondents Nos.2, 3, 5 and husband of Mst. Azizan respondent No,4 with the connivance of the Settlement Department got included Killas Nos.5 and 6 in his RL-II on 3rd November, 1955. According to petitioner's case, there was no such order in favour of Fazal Muhammad, therefore, he illegally got included these Killas numbers in his favour. Petitioners challenged the order dated 3rd November, 1955 before the Settlement Authorities but eventually without success. Therefore, ultimately matter came up before High Court in writ petition, which has been disposed of by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's father was the transferee of Killas Nos.5 and 6 as it has been manifest from the Jamabandi, therefore, Settlement Authority had no jurisdiction to include both the Killa numbers (5 and 6) in RL-II of Fazal Muhammad on 3rd November, 1955.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and have carefully gone through the judgment impugned. Learned High Court had examined the case thoroughly and concluded that as far as Ghulam Ghaus father of petitioners is concerned, he is not in possession of the allotment in respect of Killas Nos. 5 and 6. When we inquired from the learned counsel as to whether he is in possession of the same, he could not answer satisfactorily except saying that in Jamabandi father of petitioners has been shown to be transferee of Killas Nos.5 and 6. We are not inclined to accept the explanation offered by him being unsatisfactory because the Settlement Department after conducting thorough probe came to the conclusion that there is no allotment letter of Killas Nos.5 and 6 in favour of petitioners.
5. Because the question of facts has been decided on the basis of material available on record by the Settlement Authority and has been confirmed by all the Courts below, therefore, we are of the opinion that no point is made out for exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
' Thus for the foregoing reasons, we see no force in this petition, as such the same is dismissed and leave declined.