Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 866 of 1974, decided on 2nd December 1974.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lz3tlore High Court made on the 19th of June 1974 in Writ Petition No. 434/R of 1973).
‑‑ Art. 185(3) ‑Findings of fact‑Not ordinarily susceptible to challege in writ jurisdiction ‑Nor can leave to appeal be granted to examine such findings if properly‑ decided by Courts below in light of available material.
Rana Abdul Rahim Advocate instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 2nd December 1974.
The dispute in this case concerns property No. 2, Civil Lines, Sargodha, said to be consisting of a shop which has been in the possession of the petitioner since before Partition as a tenant under the non‑Muslim evacuee owner. The petitioner applied for its transfer on form L S in 1966, but the Deputy Settlement Commissioner delayed passing orders thereon, with the result that the petitioner invoked the revision jurisdiction of the Settlement Commissioner, Sargodha Division. This Officer observed, In his order dated the 22nd of March 1973, that the revision petition was premature, and he directed the petitioner‑ to approach the Deputy Settlement Commissioner concerned for the early disposal of his L S form.
Aggrieved by this revisional 4order, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court which has been accepted by a learned Single Judge, by his order dated the 19th of June 1974, holding that the property in dispute had already been transferred to the respondents by an order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated the 21st of December 1960, which order had become final much before 1966 as it was not challenged by the present petitioner. The learned Judge has further taken note of the fact that in ejectment proceedings started by the respondents it was held up to the level of the High Court that the property in the possession of the petitioner was a part of the hall which had been transferred to the respondents in 1960 as an unregistered industrial concern. On this view of the matter, the learned Judge has set aside the revisional order of the Settlement Commissioner.
Leave to appeal is sought mainly on the ground that none of the Courts below have specifically adverted to the point that the property transferred to the respondents bears description No. 3, Civil Lines, whereas, the petitioner is seeking transfer of property described as No. 2‑Civil Lines. It is further submitted that in the original order of transfer passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 21‑12‑1960 in favour of the respondents, it is nowhere mentioned that the property occupied by the petitioner was also being transferred to the respondents.
There is no merit in either of these submissions. From the detailed orders passed by the various authorities in this case, and local inspection carried out during the pendency of ejectment proceedings, it has become abundantly clear that the property now in dispute forms part and parcel of the industrial hall transferred to the respondents, irrespective of the property number given to it. In the P. T. D., the dimensions of the hall were mentioned, and local inspection confirmed that these dimensions could be satisfied only if the portion occupied by the petitioner was included therein. These are all findings of fact which are ordinarily not susceptible to challenge in writ jurisdiction, nor can special leave to appeal be granted only to examine a pure question of fact which has been properly decided by the Courts below in the light of the available material.
As a result, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer