Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 512 of 1972, decided on 27th June 1973.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 15th September 1972, in Writ Petition No. 218/11 of 1971).

Art. 186(3)‑Finding on possession and allotment of house arrived at after due care by Settlement authorities, and High Court rightly accepting such finding‑petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 27th June 1973.

The dispute between the parties is in respect of house No. 43, situate in village Padhrar, Tehsil Khushab, District Sarhodha which was an evacuee property. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that he came into possession of the house in 1947 and continued to possess the same until 1960, when it was taken over by the police for setting up a temporary police post in the village. It is further alleged that the possession of the house in dispute was restored to the petitioner by the police after the closure of the police post in the year 1962. He lent out the house in dispute to one Ghulam Abbas, a Dhewar of village Padhrar, for residential purposes. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 forcibly occupied the house in dispute and threw out the said Ghulam Abbas from it.

Respondent No. 1 claimed that he has come in possession of the house in dispute through Ghulam Muhammad to whom he paid Rs. 120 and purchased his right in the house in dispute. This contention was accepted by the learned Assistant Settlement Commissioner and the property in dispute was transferred to respondent No. 1 on the 14th November, 1969. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, which was dismissed on the 12th May, 1970. A revision petition filed by him, was also dismissed on the 12th January, 1971. The petitioner then brought Writ Petition No. 218/11 of 1971, in the Lahore High Court, which was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge on the 15th September, 1972.

The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order. Mr. Muhammad Hussain Chaudhry, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the finding of the Settlement authorities that the house in dispute was in occupation of respondent No. 1 on the 1st January, 1961 and that it was rightly transferred to him under Settlement Scheme No. 7, is based on misreading of the evidence produced on the record. He further contended that the High Court has failed to appreciate the evidence and has not arrived at a right conclusion. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. There is evidence on the record that the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Jauharabad, inspected the record himself before deciding the case. Patwari halqa was summoned along with the record. The register of property brought by him showed that the house in question, in 1958, was in occupation of the Police Department. The register of Scheme No. 7, prepared in 1964‑65, shows that the house in question was in occupation of Fateh Khan respondent No. 1 and the original allotment order dated the 23rd June, 1960, was shown in the name of one Ghulam Muhammad. It is also proved on the record that respondent No. 1 has purchased this house from Ghulam Muhammad on the 21st December, 1960, vide receipt at page 7/8 of the file of the allotment of the house. On this evidence, the Settlement authorities came to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 was in occupation of the house in dispute on the 1st January, 1961. Iii our opinion, the finding of the learned Settlement authorities was correct ands the High Court has rightly accepted this finding. There is no force in the petition. The petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.