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.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 134 of 1969, decided on 23rd October 1969.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 18th February 1969, in L. P. A. No. 26 of 1969).
, Sched., Part I‑A, a transferee of house paying purchase price by surrendering verified claim‑Claim subsequently found not genuine and hence demand made for payment of purchase price Before expiry of 30 days during which A under rules had option to pay sum due, Deputy Settlement Commissioner disposing of property by auction‑Action of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, held, hasty and Settlement Commissioner justified in restoring property to A.
Ghulam Mujadid Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mushtaq Ahmad Khawaja, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 23rd October 1969.
‑Property No. 210/D in Burewala, district Multan, was transferred to the respondent No. 1, a claimant displaced person, under Settlement Scheme No. 1. He paid the entire sale price by surrendering the verified claim purchased from a third person whereupon P. T. O. and P. T. D. were issued in his name. Later on, the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner found that the claim surrender by the respondent No. 1 was not genuine and he made demand for payment of Rs. 14,000 odd. No date for payment was specified in the notice. A second notice for payment was issued on the 22nd April 1968, calling upon him to pay the amount within two days. In default of payment the transfer in favour of the respondent No. 1 was cancelled on the 3rd May 1968 and the property sold by auction to the petitioner on the 14th May 1968.
The respondent No. 1. moved the Additional Settlement Commissioner against the cancellation of the transfer in his favour on the ground that the default was due to mischance and that he was not given sufficient opportunity to pay the amount. He also made grievance of the hasty auction of the property before the expiry of 30 days during which period he had under the rules the option to pay the sum due and ask for restoration of the property resumed for default in payment of the transfer price.
The appeal was rejected, but on a further revision petition the Settlement Commissioner found merit in the pleas raised by the respondent No. 1 and cancelling the auction in favour of the petitioner restored the property to him. A writ petition lodged by the petitioner against the order of the Settlement Commis sioner having failed in the High Court he now seeks leave to appeal.
The facts narrated above do make out a hasty action on the part of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in cancelling the transfer in favour of the respondent No. 1 and its disposal by auction in favour of the petitioner before the expiry of the period during which he could on payment of the sale price apply for restoration of the property. Otherwise too the order made by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner was eminently just and there would have been no justification for the High Court to interfere with it is the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction.
The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer