Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.793/11 of 1977, decided on 9th December, 1985.

---Art.199--Concurrent findings of fact--Constitutional jurisdiction- Exercise of--Concurrent findings of fact by Courts below based on record and arrived at in subjective satisfaction of Court, held, could not be substituted in absence of document to the contrary.

---Para. 44-A--Allotment of land to Jammu and Kashmir refugees for maintenance--Death of original allotee--Effect--Land allotted to original allottee for maintenance, would become available for transfer to any other eligible person after death of said allottee who was alone permit holder--Heir of deceased allottee, held, had no vested right to be given notice before transfer of such land to eligible person.

Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Petitioner.

Raja Afrasiab Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 8th December, 1985.

This writ petition is directed against the original order dated 26-3-1970 of the Assistant Settlement Commissioner and the revisional order dated 15-3-1977 of the Settlement Commissioner upholding the transfer of the land in question measuring 9 Kanals 11 Marlas in favour of the respondent Umar Din.

2. Earlier, land measuring 42 Kanals including 9 Kanals 11 Marlas now in question was allotted on 2-11-1960 to Mst. Raisham Bibi as a refugee from Azad Jammu and Kashmir State, for maintenance. Allegedly the petitioner as her son-in-law occupied the land but in the course of time some portions thereof were taken away from him for one reason or the other. He was able to get them back by filing Appeals/ Revisions on the ground that he was a member of her family and as such entitled to retain them for maintenance.

3. The respondent Umar Din, however, was able to get 9 Kanals 11 Marlas out of the area allotted to her presumably on the ground that she alone was the permit-holder and that after her demise, it was person. Accordingly the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Land) by his impugned order dated 26-3-1970 transferred it to him. The petitioner again claiming to be a member of her family as son-in-law preferred the revision petition but this time he did not succeed. The view taken was that the record of the case particularly the Fard Taqseem as also the permit granted to the deceased lady showed that she was all alone the permit-holder and that the petitioner had made a crude attempt by adding his name in pencil as her dependent or a member of her family. Accordingly his revision petition was dismissed.

4. Ch. Muhammad Abdullah, Advocate for the petitioner laid considerable stress on the point that at least in two other cases, the petitioner was able to show himself to be a member of the family of the deceased lady and that there was no occasion this time to refuse him the same status. Admittedly the respondent Umar Din was not a party to those proceedings and any decision made therein was not binding upon him. Secondly, it was finding of fact that the record had been interpolated. The learned Settlement Commissioner (Land) was quite unequivocal in his observation that Fard Taqseem was tampered with to add the name of the petitioner in pencil whereas the deceased lady was shown in ink to be the only permit holder. Counsel for the respondent argued that the observation made by the lower Court could not be displaced as it related to a question of fact and also was mad subjective satisfaction of the officer concerned. He emphasized that not only the Fard Taqseem but also the very permit under which the deceased lady was allotted this land was carefully examined. It was found to have been interfered with so as to have added the petitioners name. The objection was quite formidable and the subjective satisfaction of the lower Court could not be substituted particularly when no document was shown to the contrary. It related to a .fact as well.

5. Counsel argued that the entire proceedings conducted by the Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Land) were without any notice to the petitioner. He canvassed against it before the Court of revision but the examination of the record showed that he had no vested right to be given any notice.

6. As a result, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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