Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 98 of 1982, decided on 27th March, 1982.

(Against the order dated 19‑12‑81 of the Lahore High Court in W. P. No. 689/R of 1981).

‑‑ Arts. 185 & 199 read with Settlement Scheme No. VIII‑Transfer of plot‑Appeal to Supreme Court‑Writ jurisdiction‑Conclusions of fact drawn by Settlement Authorities based on inspection of spot and history of case‑Facts sought to be considered by petitioner already considered and decision taken ‑ Question of fact explored, examined and decided by competent Tribunal and High Court finding its hands tied in constitutional jurisdiction in interfering with same Held, such questions cannot be reappraised by Supreme Court.

Rana Muhammad Bashir Khan and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 27th March, 1982.

The petitioner who has been unsuccessful in obtaining the transfer of a small plot of 2 marlas, seeks ‑leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 19‑12‑1981 whereby a constitutional petition filed by him was dismissed.

The petitioner claimed to be in occupation of Khasras Nos. 3540 and 3541 measuring 2 marlas and 148 feet inside Bhati Gate, Lahore. He claimed to have applied for its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII in 1971, on the ground that he had raised construction on it. His Form, and application for transfer was not considered and instead the plot was transferred to' respondent No. 2 on 23‑4‑1980. The petitioner pressed for the disposal of his claim on which an inquiry was held and it was found that the petitioner various reasons was not entitled to the transfer and his claim was rejected. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his claim to the property by a constitutional petition but the same was dismissed on the ground that there way a finding of fact recorded by the Settlement authority holding that at the time when the transfer was made in favour of respondent No. 21, the petitioner was neither in possession of the property nor had raised the construction.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to establish before us by reference to the reports of the various subordinates in the Settlement Department that the fact which was made the basis for decision was itself wrongly decided and the petitioner was, in fact, in possession from a much earlier date and had also proved having raised construction on it. The learned counsel pressed into service for establishing this the report of the settlement Patwari and the receipt for the purchases of building material.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we have come to the conclusion that the decisions of the settlement authority as well as of the High Court proceed on certain findings of fact and unless those findings of fact are reversed it is not possible to hold the petitioner entitled to the relief he is seeking. The tribunal entrusted with the duty of exploring, examining and deciding questions of fact having done so and the High Court finding its hands tied in constitutional jurisdiction interfering with it, this Court cannot resort to reappraisal of the same. This is particularly so because all the facts which the learned counsel for the petitioner wants to be taken into consideration were already considered and a decision was given. It also appears from the record that there has been going on contentious litigation between other persons in respect of the same plot or the plot in the vicinity and more than once the property was inspected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. In such a background where the conclusions of fact drawn are based on certain inspections of the spot and the history of the case it is not possible to interfere with it. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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