Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 156 of 1971, decided on 9th May 1972.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated the 8th June 1971, in R. S. A. No. 403 of 1970).

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation), Act (XXVIII of 1958),

Sched.‑H in possession of part of property making statement before Settlement Authorities that he had no objection if whole property be transferred to M‑Property conse quently transferred to M but H subsequently filing civil suit and claiming that his statement was obtained by fraud‑Suit, appeal and second appeal dismissed on finding no fraud proved‑Supreme Court refused to grant Special Leave to Appeal.

S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 9th May 1972.

This petition is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby the petitioner's second appeal was dismissed in limine.

The dispute relates to property No. S‑W‑3‑40‑S‑I‑B, Krishan Nagar, Lahore, which was an evacuee property acquired by the Central Government for disposal under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. It is a composite property comprising of residential and commercial units, and was occupied by four different persons, including the petitioner and Muhammad Hamid, respondent No. 2, all of whom tried for its transfer by the Settlement authorities. It appears that the petitioner, Abdul Haq, appeared before Mr. Abdul Rashid, Assistant Settlement Commissioner, who possessed delegated powers of Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, and stated before him that he had no objection to the transfer of the house to respondent No. 2, as he had himself withdrawn his claim. The other occupants of the property made similar statements. In these circumstances, the Assistant Settlement Commissioner transferred the entire property to the aforesaid respondent on the 13th of November 1959. The matter was taken in appeal to the Additional Settlement Commissioner, who dismissed it. A revision petition filed before the Settlement Commissioner was also rejected, but it was directed that the respondent No. 2 was not entitled to the shops and that he was only eligible to retain the residential units. It was directed that the shops be put to the auction pool. This order was confirmed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner challenged the transfer of the house to the respondent in a writ petition to the High Court, which was dismissed. After having lost his case on the settlement side as well as in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, the petitioner filed a civil suit in an effort to revive his claim to the property. His suit has been dismissed as well as his appeal and second appeal.

The grievance made in the suit was that his statement in favour of respondent No. 2, whereby he was said to have with drawn his claim in favour of respondent No. 2, was procured by fraud. The Courts have held that no fraud was proved. The other point, which was urged in the civil suit, and which has also been argued before us, is that the transfer stands vitiated for the reason that Mr. Abdul Rashid, Assistant Settlement Commis sioner, had not been delegated the powers of the Deputy Settle ment Commissioner, and he was, therefore, competent to make the transfer in favour of respondent No. 2. In reply to a question contained in the interrogatories, which were sent at the instance of the plaintiff during the trial to the Chief Settlement Commis sioner, it was definitely stated that on the day when Mr. Abdul Rashid transferred the property to respondent No. 2, he was acting as Assistant Settlement Commissioner with delegated powers of Deputy Settlement Commissioner. There was thus no basis for this objection against Mr. Abdul Rashid.

We find no substance in this petition, which stands dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.