1987 PLP 884 (SCMR)

Aitzaz Ahsan, Bar‑at‑Law instructed by Mr. Mehmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd February, 1087. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 10‑4‑1982 of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioner's Constitutional Petition arising out of an urban settlement case, was dismissed.

2. Abdur Rashid respondent was transferred a composite property which contained a residential unit and several shops. Subsequently, the Settlement Authorities passed such orders which excluded all other shops from the transfer made to him except one shop. The residential unit was also left with him. He challenged these orders up to the Supreme Court but without any success. In the Supreme Court judgment dated 17‑6‑1980 it is mentioned that the shop left with him was No.6, but the shop given to him was No.5. His counsel had also pleaded in the High Court that instead of giving him Shop No.6 which was in his possession, the Settlement Authorities on account of a clerical mistake wrongly mentioned Shop No.5 in the documents of transfer and that the Settlement Authorities were required by law to make the correction. This prayer was disposed of by the High Court by making an observation that the application for rectification of the mistake could always be made to the Settlement Authorities. All this happened in Writ Petition No. 25‑R of 1972; wherein an order for maintenance of status quo had also been passed on 17‑1‑1972. Notwithstanding the same, shop No.6 was transferred to the petitioner on the same day, i.e. 17‑1‑1972 under Settlement Scheme No.VIII by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Abdur Rashid respondent after exhausting his remedy in the Supreme Court against the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 25‑R of 1972 made an application for clerical' correction in the documents of transfer to include shop No. 6 instead of No.5. This application was allowed by an Administrator Residual Property in an elaborate order passed on 14‑3‑1981 wherein reference was also made to another observation made by the High Court in another Writ Petition (No. 403‑R of 1974) wherein another person, namely, Muhammad Hanif Gill, had challenged the order of transfer of Shop No 5 to Abdur Rashid. A finding of fact was also rendered that Abdur Rashid respondent was in possession of shop No.6 and he had sought its transfer in statement made in 1969 on the basis of his possession. Accordingly, it was held that shop No.6 and not No.5 was transferred to Abdur Rashid respondent. The transfer made in favour of the petitioner under Settlement Scheme. No. III on 17‑1‑1972 in face of the stay order issued by the High Court was also adversely commented upon in this order.

3. The petitioner filed a constitutional petition in the High Court (No. 43‑R of 1981) which having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal.

4. In addition to the other factors, already noted, the learned Judge in the High Court noticed an affidavit sworn by the petitioner on 13‑12‑1972 presumably filed in support of his request for transfer of shop No. 6 to him, wherein he had admitted that this shop having been transferred to respondents in 1959 was in his (petitioner's) possession as a tenant under Abdur Rashid respondent, since then. The learned Judge also made adverse comment on the conduct of the petitioner. It was found that in fact Abdur Rashid was in possession of the shop No.6 and the same had been transferred to him and order of correction impugned in the High Court was unexceptionable.

5. Notwithstanding the aforenoted findings of fact, learned counsel tried to show that Abdur Rashid respondent was not in possession of shop No.6, that the said findings are incorrect and that in reality petitioner was in possession of shop No. 6 in his own right since before 1969.

6. We have gone through all the documents relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We have not been able to find any justification to interfere with the findings of fact by the High Court and the Administrator Residual Property. They are unexceptionable and do not suffer from any infirmity, legal or otherwise. In so far as the competency to make corrections like the one in this case, is concerned, this Court has already decided that such an action on the part of the Settlement Authorities would not be without lawful authority. See Habibullah v. Settlement Commissioner etc. 1982 S C M R

4. This petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. M.I. /M‑63/S Petition dismissed.