1991 PLP 778 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑S.10‑‑‑Settlement Scheme No.I‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑ Question whether disputed portion of property was a part of `Chappar' transferred to predecessor‑in‑interest of petitioner and if not, was available for transfer to respondent was a question of fact which had thoroughly been examined by Settlement Authorities and decided in favour of respondents which was rightly not interfered with by High Court‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal having no merit for consideration was thus dismissed. Hamid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 24th January, 1990. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 5‑2‑1986, whereby his writ petition was dismissed. The matter in dispute in this petition is relating to 20 marlas of the disputed land which is a portion of the property known as `Chappar' and was allotted to Muhammad Iqbal, Muhammad Khan and Muhammad Azam by the Central Government and the petitioner purchased the same from them vide registered sale‑deed While the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the disputed land of 20 marlas to Ch. Nazir Ahmad, respondent No.3 vide P T D dated 6‑2‑1973, who had alienated the same to Rana Arshad respondent No.4 by way of sale‑deed. The petitioner made representation before the M.B.R. (Settlement and Rehabilitation Wing) on which no action was taken. He then challenged the matter before the Lahore High Court through a constitutional petition which was dismissed being non‑competent, vide impugned judgment. We have heard the learned counsel in support of this petition and have gone through the relevant record of the case. We have observed that the main question for determination in this case is whether 20 marlas of the disputed land were already the part of the `Chappar' in suit or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the property known as `Chappar' has already been transferred to the predecessor of the petitioner. The learned counsel also referred to the para‑wise comments of the department stating therein that the record of the department does not show the disputed property as forming part of the Chappar. The report of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was read out, according to which the plot being put to auction was an evacuee property and has not so far been disposed of, therefore, it will be auctioned today. Now, the question whether the disputed portion of the property was a part of the `Chappar' transferred to Muhammad Iqbal, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioner, and if not so, is available for the transfer to the respondent No.3 is the question of fact which has thoroughly been examined by the Settlement Authorities and decided in favour of the respondent No.3 which was rightly not interfered by the learned High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. The result is that this petition has no merit for consideration of this and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./S‑552/S Petition dismissed.