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. 1022 of 1975, decided on 2nd February, 1981.
(On appeal from judgment dated 19‑8‑1975 of the Lahore High Court in W. P. No. 685‑R of 1970).
---Art. 185(3)‑Leave to appeal‑Three Officers of Settlement Department finding basement of disputed house to be part of adjoining house‑‑High Court, held, had no jurisdiction to vary finding of fact, and writ petition rightly dismissed‑Leave to appeal declined.
Muhammad Abdullah Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Memo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 2nd February, 1981.
The facts giving rise to this leave petition are that the petitioners are transferees of House No. BE. IV. 41‑S‑12, and the controversy between the parties is whether or not the basement in occupation of respondents 2 to 4, the successor‑in‑interest of one Muhammad Tufail, forms part of this house. The finding of fact arrived at by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, vide order dated 18‑5‑1966, which was maintained in departmental appeal as well as revision is that the basement forms part of the adjoining house bearing No. SE. IV 41‑S‑10. This finding was sought to be challenged in a writ petition filed by the petitioners in the High Court Lahore but a learned Single Judge rightly came to the conclusion that the finding was unexceptionable and it was, even otherwise, not open to question in Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
Mr. Bajwa, the learned counsel for the petitioners, was once again a pains to point out that the basement formed part and parcel of the house transferred to the petitioners. As aforesaid not less than three officers o the Settlement Department have found the basement to be part of the adjoining house No. SE. IV 41‑S‑I0. In the circumstances the High Court had no jurisdiction to vary this finding of fact and the petition was, therefore, rightly dismissed.
There is no merit in this petition and it is, accordingly, 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