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. 104 of 1971, decided on 14th March 1972.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated the 2nd June 1971, in L. P. A. No. 64 of 1971).
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958),
Sched., Part IV‑Industrial concern, auction of‑Condition of auction being: "claimants may be given benefit of deferred payment" in compensation book‑Adjustment of purchase price, in circumstance, held, could not be claimed on basis of total amount of verified claim.
Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 14th March 1972.
On the 28th September 1957, Sardar Carbonic Gas Factory, Rawalpindi, was sold through an auction and it was purchased by petitioner No. 1, along with other persons for Rs. 13,03,000. The price was subsequently reduced to Rs. 9,28,172. After adjustment of the payment through compensation books, the balance outstanding against them is Rs. 6,80,818. Arshad Ali, who also filed a compensation book applied that his compensation book should be returned to him. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, by Memorandum dated the 14th June 1966, informed the parties that he could be allowed to withdraw his compensation book if an amount equal to that available in his compensation book was first paid. This order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 954‑R of 1966, on the ground that under the Displaced Persons (Com pensation and Rehabilitation) Act, the payment could be made by associating claimants and, therefore, the impugned order directing payment by means of cash was illegal. A learned Single Judge of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, held that payment through association was permissible under law till the 30th of June 1966. He passed a consent order providing the manner in which the balance of the amount was to be paid by the petitioners. The petitioners challenged this order in L. P. A. No. 64 of 1971, which was dismissed on the 2nd June 1971. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said order.
Mr. Munir Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that the petitioners are entitled to make payment on the basis of the total amount of their verified claims is their com pensation books. In this connection he has referred to condition No. 12 on the basis of which the auction was held in favour of the petitioners. It reads as under :‑
"Displaced persons claimants whose claims have been verified will be allowed full benefit of their verified claims up to a maximum of Rs. 7 lac only. Successful bidders will have to produce a certified copy of the final judgment certifying the claim."
The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed us. Under the heading claimants', the following condition has been mentioned in the earlier part of the proceeding of auction held on the 12th September 1957 :‑
"Successful bidders from amongst the claimants may be given the benefit of deferred payment against their unverified claims on a graduated scale."
It is, therefore, quite clear that the adjustment was to be made on the basis of deferred payment in the compensation book. The contention of the learned counsel that adjustment is to be made on the basis of the total amount of the compensation book is not supported by any reliable authority. The parties have entered into a compromise before the learned Single Judge and they are bound by it. If the petitioners do no want to take the property in dispute they can approach the authorities concerned for the redress of their grievances. There is no force in the petition.
The petition 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