Pakistan Case Law← Search
1981 CLC 822

Mirza ABDUL HAMEED vs DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND 2 OTHERS s

Citation1981 CLC 822
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No, 440/1 of 1980
Date1980-10-27
Judge(s)Ghulam Mujaddid Mirza
ResultPetition dismissed

' Mirza Abdul Hameed has challenged the order dated 20-5-1980 of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, by means of this constitutional petition whereby the petitioner was held to be not entitled to transfer of property No, E. 2208, situate at inside Shah Alam Gate, Lahore. The impugned order was passed in the second round of litigations. The first round concluded when I decided Writ Petitions Nos. 876/R, 975/R, 976/R, 977/R, 978/R, 979/R, 1447/R, 1448/R and 1449/R, all of 1974 and sent the case to the Settlement Commissioner for fresh decision.

2. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition contended that the form of the petitioner with regard to the property in dispute was pending and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner as such erred in law in transferring this property to respondent No, 2 in preference to the petitioner. It was next contended that the petitioner being in possession of the property had a better right of transfer viz-a-viz respondent No, 2.

3. I have also heard the learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

4. The petitioner and respondent No, 2 are real brothers. I gave them a chance to come to an amicable settlement but both were adamant. I, therefore, have no choice but to decide this petition on merits. For that matter I notice that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed the impugned order after spot inspection. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the possession is concerned there is a definite finding by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner that the possession of respondent No, 2 was established from the auction list, bid sheet and other documentary evidence. The finding of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner about the possession is a finding of fact which is not subject to any exception in the constitutional jurisdiction. Even the form filed by respondent No, 2 I prior in time with compare to the petitioner.

5. For the foregoing reasons I am of the view that there is no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search