Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 171 of 1973, decided on 9th October, 1973.

(On appeal from an order of the Lahore High Court, made on the 16th of February 1973, in W. P. No. 129‑R of 1973).

---S. 19‑Appeal‑Petitioner applying to Rent Controller for being impleaded as party in ejectment proceedings‑Petitioner presumed to have acquired knowledge of transfer of property in favour of person filling ejectment proceedings before Rent Controller‑Appeal filed before Settlement Authorities in respect of transfer of property more than four years after acquiring knowledge of transfer, held, rightly dismissed as time‑barred‑Limitation.

Mian Nazir Akhter, Advocate instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Kadri, Advocate ‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 9th October 1973.

This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against an order made by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 16‑2‑73, whereby a writ petition filed by the petitioner in respect of the transfer of evacuee shop No. D/109 situate in Kucha Sewa Ram, Rawalpindi, was dismissed in limine.

The relevant facts are that by an order made on the 2nd of December 1959, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the shop along with the Chaubara on the top, bearing No. D/108, to the respondent Mohammad Ishaq on the basis of his application in form C. S. The respondent there upon issued a statutory notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act to the occupant of the shop, vie., the father of the present petitioner. He followed it up by instituting ejectment proceedings before the Rent Controller. On 9‑6‑67, the petitioner applied to the Rent Controller for being impleaded as a party to the proceedings, but the application was rejected on 6‑7‑1968. It was stated at the Bar that the petitioner then filed two civil suits to restrain the respon dent‑transferee from having him ejected from the premises but the suits were either dismissed or withdrawn.

Having failed to obtain any redress from the Rent Controller and the civil Court, the petitioner made an application on 10‑8‑1971 for a copy of the order made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 2‑12‑1959, whereby the property had been transferred to the respondent. On 17‑9‑1971, he filed an appeal against this order, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner on 28‑9‑1972 on the ground that it was hopelessly barred by time. The petitioner's revision petition was similarly dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 15‑1 _‑1972.

While dismissing the petitioner's writ petition, the High Court has observed that even if it be assumed that the Deputy Settlement Com missioner's order dated the 2nd of December 1959 was passed without notice to the petitioner, yet he had definitely acquired knowledge of the transfer on 9‑6‑1967, when he had applied before the Rent Controller for being impleaded as a party to the ejectment proceedings commenced by the transferee against the petitioner's father. However, even then he slept over his rights for more than four years before filing the appeal on 17‑9‑1971. The High Court has concluded that, in the circumstances, it appears that the appeal filed by the petitioner was only intended as a counter‑blast to the ejectment proceedings commenced by the transferee.

It is submitted by the learned counsel that as NCS form filed by the petitioner on 8‑8‑59 for the transfer of the shop in dispute still remains undisposed of and the order of transfer dated the 2nd of December 1959 was made by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner behind the petitioner's back, no question of limitation arose in this case. It seems to the learned counsel that the Settlement authorities were, in the circumstances, under an obligation to entertain the petitioner's appeal on merits, even if it was filed nearly 12 years after the date of the order.

There is no merit in these submissions. From the facts stated above, it is clear that the petitioner had acquired knowledge of the transfer of the property at least during the ejectment proceedings commenced by the respondent against the petitioner's father. In these circumstances, limitation started to run against the petitioner from the date on which he acquired such knowledge. We have already stated that he had made an application before the Rent Controller on 9‑6‑67 for being impleaded as a party in the ejectment proceedings. There is no explanation whatsoever for the delay of more than four years which occurred even after the petitioner had acquired this knowledge. In the circumstances, the Settlement authorities were clearly right in rejecting his appeal and revision on the ground of limitation. The High Court was similarly right in refusing to interfere.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

,Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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