Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 54 of 1975, decided on 15th March, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 20th December, 1974, in W. P. No. 11-R of 1974)

--- Art. 185 (3)-Leave to appeal-Finding of Settlement authority as to who among petitioners filed disputed form-A finding of fact-Such finding noticed by High Court to have been passed in implementation of earlier order of High Court-Case, held, concluded by a finding of fact and there being no omission or misreading of evidence or violation of any principle of law relevant to subject in hand no ground existed for interference.-[Finding of fact]

Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikander and others P L D 1974 S C 139 ref.

A. R. Shaukat, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Saeed-ur-Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court and Salahuddin Ahmad, Advocate- on-Record for Respondents 2 and 3.

Date of hearing : 15th March, 1980,

The dispute in this case is as to who among the petitioner (Shames-ud-Din) and Nizam Din (now-represented by his legal heirs Muhammad. Ismail and Muhammad Sharif) (respon dents 2 and 3 herein) filed a form bearing No. 9373. The case of the petitioner Shames-ud-Din was that the aforesaid Form was filed by him whereas the case of Nizam Din (deceased) was that it was he who had filed that Form. The High Court by its order dated 12th February, 1973 passed in Settlement Revision. No. 35 of 1964 remanded the case to the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner for determining as to who had filed that Form with a further direction that the land should be trans ferred to or settled upon the party who had filed that Form. After remand the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner found that the Form had been filed by Nizam Din but instead of the following the High Court's direction and transferring the land to the aforesaid claimant, he transferred it to Shames-ud-Din on certain other extraneous considera tions which strictly speaking did not fall within limited scope of the remand order of the High Court.

2. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order respondents 2 and 3 filed a constitutional petition being W. P. 11-R/714 which brought fruit and was accepted by the High Court by its judgment dated 20th December, 1-974. The High Court took the view that after having found that the aforesaid claim Form had been filed by Nizam Din, the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner acted without lawful authority in not transferring the land to him in violation of the earlier direction of the High Court.

3. Shamas-ud-Din has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to his Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the High Court erred in acting upon the finding of the learned Chief' Settlement Com missioner that Form No. 9303 had been filed by Nizam Din which finding according to the learned counsel was not correct. The contention has no merit. As laid down by this Court in Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikander and others (P- L D 1974 S C 139) a factual finding of such nature was binding on the High Court and for this reason it rightly proceeded to examine the case further in the light of the aforesaid finding. In that way the High Court was then justified to hold that after giving the afore said finding the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner could not have Violated the earlier order of the High Court by transferring the land to the present petitioner Shames-ud-Din. At this juncture learned counsel tried to argue that the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner had not given any finding that the aforesaid Form was filed by Nizam Din. We went through the record and it transpired that the submission of the learned counsel was based on an incomplete copy contained in his paper book and when we examined the attested copy contained in the main file of the ease in the Registry, we noticed that the High Court has correctly noticed that the Chief Settlement Commissioner had in fact found and held that the Form had been filed by Nizam Din. Since the later order of Chief Settlement Commissioner was nothing but just an implementation of the earlier order of the High Court dated 12th February, 1973, therefore, the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner had no option but to strictly comply with the same and if he tried to bypass it on certain extraneous considerations, the High Court was justified in quashing the same in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. The case is concluded by a finding of fact and as there is neither any omission nor misreading of evidence nor violation of any principle of law relevant to the subject in hand there does not exist any ground for interference by this Court.

5. The results s that this petition has no merits and 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.