Find a Lawyer

(On Appeal from the Judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 21st September 1970, in L. P. A. No. 146 of 1970).

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

Sched., Part I‑Transfer in favour of displaced person subsequently cancelled on ground that he had misrepresented himself as Government servant‑Finding (of Settlement Commissioner that claimant had made misrepresentation) based purely on surmise and conjectures and not supported by documents on record High Court, held, right in setting aside order of cancellation.

A. K. Brohi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (A. H. Najafi, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 28th June 1972.

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C J.‑‑

The dispute in these cases relates to House No. 15, Fazal Elahi Street, Ichhra, Lahore. This was transferred to the respondent, M. M. Aslam, by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the 11th November 1959 on his N: C. H. form, but on the 14th of October 1961 the present petitioner lodged an information with the Enforcement Directorate alleging that the said respondent bad obtained the transfer of the house by practising fraud on the Settlement Department, that is to say, by falsely holding himself out to be a Government servant.

After investigation, the case was referred to the Chief Settlement Commissioner who directed the isstl4nce of a show‑cause notice and entrusted the case to the Settlement Commissioner (Policy) for disposal.

It was alleged before him that Aslam was net even a displaced person, but he came to the conclusion that he was a displaced person, although his other family members originally belonged to Pind Dadan Khan in Jhelum District. He also found that the allotment of the house had been obtained on the 1st of June 1955, in the name of the said respondent by making a material misrepresentation that he was a Government servant. The transfer was accordingly cancelled and the house was directed to be transferred to the petitioner as an informer.

From this order, both the petitioner and the respondent Aslam went up to High Court in the writ jurisdiction. Adam filed Writ Petition No. 959‑R of 1962 challenging the cancellation of the transfer and the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 2076‑R of 1962 challenging the finding that Aslam was a displaced person and not a local.

A learned Single Judge, on the 1st of May 1970, dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner and accepted that of the respondent Aslam upholding the transfer of the house in his name.

It appears that finding of the Settlement Commissioner (Policy) regarding misrepresentation was based only upon an entry in the Allotment Order which showed the respondent Aslam as "refugee (Government Servant)". The relevant file relating to the transfer of the house was, mysteriously enough, not available then to the Settlement Commissioner (Policy). During the hearing of writ petitions in the High Court, however, the respondent filed a number of documents, and when it was enquired from him as to how he had obtained these documents, he disclosed that the file had since been re‑discovered. Thereupon, the High Court called for the file, and on examining it, found that the respondent Aslam had never at any stage represented himself to be a Govern ment Servant, and, therefore, the High Court held that he could not be said to have practised any fraud upon the Settlement Authorities. The entry in the allotment order was not based on any representation of Aslam.

From this decision the petitioner went up in Letters Patent Appeals but both the Letters Patent Appeals were rejected in limine.

The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal.

The learned counsel appearing on his behalf has given us the entire history of the case from the beginning. We have gone through the applications and orders, copies of which have no" been included in the paper book and are satisfied that the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion that Aslam had never made any representation to the effect that he was a Govern ment servant. The finding of the Settlement Commissioner (policy) that he had made such a representation was based purely, on surmise without reference to the records and it is clearly not supported by the documents on the record which have now been discovered. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere.

The mysterious disappearance of the relevant file at the time of the hearing of the case by the Settlement Commissioner (Policy) and its equally mysterious reappearance at the High Court stage are to say the least not free from suspicion.

These petitions are accordingly 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.