CH. RIASAT ALI AZAD AND OTHERS versus MST. BAKHTAWAR BIBI AND ANOTHER
The Homelessness (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 Section 2 (4), is not open for scrutiny by the High Court under the Distribution of Property, Article 98, Constitution of Pakistan (1962) under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities.
iven the benefit of her being in possession within the meaning of the above Notification. But all those contentions are negatived by a cursary glance into the various orders which are passed by the Settlement Authorities in this connection. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejected her claim only on the ground that she was a non‑allottee but did not say a word that she was not in possession. The Additional Settlement Commissioner in his appellate order has also mentioned that Mst. Bakhtawar Bibi was in possession of a minor "portion" which he did not consider to be a separate unit. In these circumstances when the Settlement Commis sioner went on the spot and found that Mst. Bakhtawar Bibi was present in the house, it cannot be said that he acted on mere presumptions and gave legal sanctity to the possession of the petitioners on account of her mere presence on the spot.
19. I, therefore, do not see that there is any force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Mst. Bakhtawar Bibi was not legally in possession of this property on the relevant date.
20. As a result of the above discussion I see no merit in this case and dismiss this petition without there being any order as to costs.
K.M.A. Petition dismissed.
