Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 196 of 1968, decided on 25th June 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 13th February 1968, in Writ Petition No. 175‑R/64).
--Art. 58(3) and Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XIII, r. I--Petition barred by time (24 days) Explanation ; that petitioner while applying for certified copies of document had inadvertently omitted to apply for copy of impugned order and hence had to make a fresh application for same‑Delay condoned.
Sched., para. 15 (3)‑Person not in possession‑ Not entitled to claim transfer.
Shaikh Bashir Ahmad, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ghulam Mujtaba Chaudri, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 25th June 1968.
This petition is time barred by 2d days but we have condoned the delay accepting the learned counsel's submission that this delay occurred in obtaining a certified copy of the impugned order of the 'High Court which was inadvertently omitted in the application which was first made by the petitioner for supply of copies of certain documents, for the purpose of filing a leave petition in this Court.
The petition, however, must fail on merits. The learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the property which is a brick‑kiln in Khasra No. 1310/299 measuring about 8 Kanals situated in the revenue estate of village Fateh Garh, was illegally allotted to respondent No. 1 as an agricultural land and that the petitioner who was in its possession was entitled to its transfer under paragraph 15 (3) of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act of 1958.
The facts are that the petitioner was a lessee of this land from the erstwhile evacuee owners on which he had put up a brick‑kiln. The lease was created by a registered deed dated the 11th of August 1941, and was to last for a period of 10 years.
It seems that the Rehabilitation Department contested the petitioner's right to retain the evacuee property whereupon an application was moved by the petitioner under section 18 of Ordinance XV of 1949, claiming that the lease was to continue till Rabi 1951, being for a period of 10 years. The Deputy custodian who decided the application on the 4th of January 1951 held that the lease was to subsist till Rabi 1951 whereafter it was open for allotment by the Rehabilitation Department. It was first allotted to one Muhammad Ibrahim and then to Ghulam Ali refugee on the 31st of October 1956. Respondent No. 1 got it in exchange from Ghulam Ali and became an allotte a thereafter.
The lease‑deed in favour of the. petitioner expressly stated that on the expiry of the lease period of 10 years, the land was to be restored to the owners in its original form, i.e., in its form before its conversion into a brick‑kiln.
It seems clear that the petitioner's possession under the lease came to an end in 1950 under the terns of the lease‑deed and as held by the Deputy Custodian, in the application moved by the petitioner himself referred to above.
We are not persuaded to accept the contention which is based on some entries in the Khasra Girdawari that the petitioner continued to remain in possession of the brick‑kiln in spite of the termination of his lease and in opposition to the claim of the Rehabilitation authorities. The entries in the Khasra Girdawari for the period 1957‑60 and entries in the relevant Jama Bandi show that the property although entered as brick‑kiln was in possession of the new allottees under the Rehabilitation Department. The petitioner had made a futile attempt to get back its possession in 1960 to reap the benefit of paragraph (1)) 3 of the Schedule mentioned above, which merely led to criminal litigation between the parties.
Since the petitioner was not in possession at the relevant time he had no entitlement to its transfer under paragraph 15 (3) of the Schedule and his claim has, therefore, to be discarded.
We dismiss the petition
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer