1982 PLP 372 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1981. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. The petitioner claims to be in possession of House No. C/20, Gumti Bazar, Lahore, since 1947. He further claims that he is a non‑claimant displaced person but admittedly did not file any N. C. H. form seeking the transfer of the said house when the Settlement operations commenced in 1959. He, however, claims to have filed such a form on 28‑10‑1966 after the promulgation of Settlement Scheme No. VIII. He further claims that no action was taken on his form and while it was still pending the property, was put to auction on 3‑8‑1973 and purchased by respondent No. 2 and the auction in his favour confirmed on 21‑5‑1973. The petitioner then flied an appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner against the auction held on 3‑8‑1971 and its confirmation on 10‑7‑1973. While the appeal was still pending the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Amendment) Act, 1973, was passed, whereby section 19 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation & Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, was omitted and sec tion 20 was reconstituted and under subsection (2) thereof all the appeals pending before a Deputy Settlement Commissioner or an Additional Settlement Commissioner were transferred to for disposal by the Settlement Commis sioner as revision petitions. The appeal was, therefore, treated as a revision and, accordingly, disposed of as such by Mr: Muhammad Nawaz Hashmi, Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner dismissed the revision mainly on two grounds, namely, that it was doubtful if the petitioner had ever filed any form which he claimed to have filed on 28‑10‑1966 because.. his inaction in pursuing the said form, from 1966 to 1973, militated against the assertion of having filed such form and secondly, the appeal filed on 10‑7‑1973 against the auction, which took place on 3‑8‑1971, was hopelessly time‑barred. The petitioner challenged the above order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner by filing a writ petition (W. P. No. 859‑R/76) before the Lahore High Court but a learned Single Judge of the said Court dismissed the same on the ground that the Additional Settlement Commissioner had dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner, both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits, namely, that be had declined to believe that the petitioner had filed any form. This being a finding of fact could not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. He accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. Mr. Abdul Majid Khan, in support of this petition, has argued that since the appeal bad been converted into a revision its dismissal on the ground of limitation is misconceived because there is no time limit in filing a revision petition and secondly, the appeal was filed against the confirmation of the auction which took place on 21‑5‑1973 and from that order the appeal was within time. We may observe, however, that the fundamental consideration on which the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner was based was that he had declined to believe that the petitioner had filed any N. C. H. form on 28‑10‑1966, as claimed by him. In these circumstances, the disposal of the property by auction was not open to any legal objection and, conse quently, the order of the Settlement authorities disposing it of through auction could not be assailed in writ jurisdiction. We agree with the High Court that the finding whether the petitioner had, indeed, filed form or not was essentially a finding of fact and the finding recorded thereon could not be challenged in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court by filing a writ petition. No ground for interference, therefore, exists. This petition must fail and is dismissed hereby. Petition dismissed.