1974 PLP 204 (SCMR)

Against this order, the petitioner, Mohammad Aslam and Nizam Din (respondent No. 2) filed three separate revision petitions. The revision peti tion of Mohammad Aslam was dismissed on the ground that he was non claimant but those of respondent No. 2 and the petitioner were accepted. The house was divided horizontally. The ground floor was transferred to the petitioner and the first floor to respondent No.

2. All other claimants were eliminated on the ground that their occupations were subsequent to the occupation of the petitioner and the said respondent No.

2. The Settlement Commissioner, it appears, had also traced out the C. H. form of the petitioner and accepted the same. It was found to have been received in the office of the Deputy settlement Commissioner, Sargodha, on the 11th of January, 1960. Three second revision petitions filed by the unsuccessful parties against this order were dismissed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. Thereupon the respondent No. I came to the former High Court of West Pakistan in its writ jurisdiction. So also did Mohammad Siddique son of Ghulam Rasul. The petitioner and his two brothers were made parties in both these petitions. Mohammad Aslam also filed a third petition against the petitioner and his brothers. All the three petitions were admitted and ordered to be heard together on 2I‑2‑63; but, on this date, unfortunately, the third writ petition was not entered in the cause list, and the petitioner's counsel, who actually filed his Vakalatnamas on this date in the other two writ petitions, asked for an adjournment on the ground that he had no time to file a written statement being under the impression that the petitions will not be heard as the third petition was nut on the cause list. The request for the adjournment was, however, refused and the Court heard the two writ petitions, namely, Nos. 1761‑R/62 and 1059‑R/63, when a new objection was taken for the first time in the High Court to the effect that the petitioner was not entitled to the transfer of the house, because, he had since submitted an application for participation in the earmarking scheme. A certificate to that effect was also filed. The petitioner's counsel denied that the petitioner had participated in any such scheme and requested the Court to remand the case back to the Settle ment Authorities for enquiry into this matter and the genuineness of the certificate filed. The learned Single Judge, however, held that the petitioner had disentitled himself to the transfer of the premises by participating in the earmarking such, me and reversed the decision of the Settlement Authorities. The whole of the ground floor was transferred by the High Court to the respondent No. 1 and the first floor to respondent No.

2. The petitioner went up in Letters Patent appeal but the same was also dismissed by a Division Bench after calling for the original records of the Settlement Department and examining the "E" register of the relevant centre. The third Writ Petition No. 1059‑R/63, however, it appears, has since been withdrawn. The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court, and it is strenuously contended on his behalf that the High Court should not, have in the Writ jurisdiction reversed the findings of the Settlement Authorities merely on the basis of a certificate granted by some official of the Department and an entry in the "E" Register which itself was of a doubtful character. There was overwriting in the address as also in the name of the father of the appli cant. In the circumstances, it could not be said with certainty that it was the petitioner who had applied for participation in the earmarking scheme. If the High Court had any doubt with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner, it should have, in any event, remanded the case back to the Settlement Authorities to hold a proper enquiry instead of undertaking this take itself in the writ jurisdiction. In view of the allegations made by the learned counsel, we ourselves sent for the "E" Register and have examined the same. We find that the name of the applicant and the parentage of the applicant given in the register is the same as that of the petitioner The overwriting to the name of the parent of the applicant is merely an overwriting made to give a bolder print to the word and it has not affected any change in the letter itself. It is true that so far as the address is concerned, the overwriting has affected a change but this may well be due to an honest mistake. Apart from the assertion of the petitioner, we have nothing else before us, on the basis of which we can definitely come to the conclusion that the entry is incorrect. Even now, the petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that any other person of the same name lived at the original address given in the register and that he had applied for participation in the earmarking scheme. In the absence of any such proof, we are not in a position to say that the High Court was wrong in placing reliance upon the entry in the "E" Register. We are not also prepared to accept the contention of the learned counsel that the High Court can in no case take additional evidence and enter into facts at the writ stage. There can be no objection in doing so when the evidence is of a simple nature and not by any means complicated. In the X present case, all that was done was that a certificate issued by the Settlement Authorities was accepted as genuine. Relying thereon, the petitioner washed to have participated in the earmarking scheme. The Letters Patent', Bench took abundant caution in calling for the Register in order to satisfy itself that such an application was in fact made. This was borne out by the entry in the register. We are unable to agree that this could not be done by the High Court in the writ jurisdiction. No illegality has, in our opinion, been committed by the High Court in passing the order concerned, even though it is with respect to a question of fact. The case could not be remanded merely to satisfy the petitioner. The petitioner ought to have made some effort to show that Mohammad Siddiq who had applied for participation in the earmarking scheme was someone else. In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.