Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal4No. K‑120 of 1973, decided on 10th September 1973.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, made on the 21st of May 1973 in Petition No. 531 of 1966).

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal‑Limitation‑Delay‑Con donation prayed for by counsel making frank admission that mistake was due to his wrong impression that during long vacation of Supreme Court time would not run‑Delay condoned in view of frank concession made by counsel‑‑Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XIII, r. 1.

S. M. Rizvi, Advocate instructed by Ahmadullah Faruqi, Advocate‑on- Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 10th September 1973.

This petition is barred by 13 days, but, the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, frankly concedes that the mistake was his, as he was under the impression that during the long vacation of the Supreme Court the time would not run. In view of his frank concession, we condone the delay and deal with the petition on merits.

The petition arises out of an order of a learned Single Judge of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court dismissing a writ petition filed to challenge an order of the Settlement authorities treating an evacuee building, known as 'Sikka' Building, situated in Plot No. J. M. 2/330, Moti Lal Nehru Road, Karachi, as divisible into three parts, allotting each to the three occupants thereof, viz., the petitioner, the respondents Nos. 4 to 7, and the third portion to respondents Nos. 8 to 13.

The petitioner is a non‑claimant displaced person but he claims to have been occupying the whole bungalow exclusively.

It appears, however, that immediately after partition the whole bungalow was allotted to one Abu Zafar, the husband of the sister of petitioner's wife. Even prior to partition, this bungalow consisted of three separate residential units which were occupied by three different persons who were separately assessed to municipal tax. When the house was inspected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and the Additional Settlement Commissioner in May, 1x63, they found the son of Abu Zafar, the original allottee, to be in occupation of the whole of the ground floor while a portion of the first floor was in occupation of one Abdul Rashid Siddiqui, the predecessor‑in- interest of respondents Nos. 8 to 13, and the remaining portion of the first floor in possession of the petitioner. All the three, viz., the petitioner, Abdul Rashid Siddiqui, and Abu Zafar, filed N CH forms for the transfer of the bungalow in question. Their forms were, however, rejected and the bungalow was notified by the Settlement Commissioner as an 'A' category house available for transfer under the earmarking scheme. Subsequently, it was allotted under this scheme to respondent No. 4, who associated with himself respondents Nos. 5 to 7.

The petitioner sought redress from the higher Settlement authorities against the rejection of his NCH form, but failing all through he moved the High Court in its writ jurisdiction by Writ Petition No. 430 of 1961. This was allowed on the ground that his NCH form had not been disposed of. The order of the Settlement Commissioner was, therefore, set aside and the case was remanded back to the Settlement authorities for recon sideration with‑the observation that the Settlement Department might consider possibilities of satisfying the claims of both parties, i.e., the petitioner and the persons who had obtained the property under the earmarking scheme by examining the possibility of the division of the house into independent units.

It appears that at this time Abdul Rashid Siddiqui had also sought to challenge the rejection of his NCH form by a writ petition. His writ petition, which was heard with the writ petition of the petitioner, was, however, dismissed.

On remand, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, after inspecting the site, divided the bungalow into three independent units and transferred the entire ground floor to respondent No. 4 and gave only a portion of the first floor to the petitioner. The portion in possession of Abdul Rashid Siddiqui was directed to be put to auction. This order was made against Abdul Rashid Siddiqui because his writ petition had been dismissed by the High Court.

Both the petitioner and Abdul Rashid Siddiqui went in further appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner nut both the appeals were dismissed. The order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was however, modified to this extent that the portion directed to be put to auction was also transferred to respondent No. 4.

From this order both the petitioner and Abdul Rashid Siddiqui again went in revision to the settlement Commissioner who dismissed the revision of the petitioner but allowed that of Abdul Rashid Siddiqui to the extent that the portion of the bungalow in his occupation was transferred to him. The petitioner sought to challenge this order in the High Court. The High Court took the view that since the house had been competently divided and one divided portion, that is to say, a house had been transferred to the petitioner be had no further cause for complaint. He could not get anything more. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal and the only ground urged on his behalf is that the revision oil the settlement side was heard by Mr. A. U. Mohammedally, who was then the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Karachi. He was not, therefore, an Additional District Judge who was empowered to hear such revisions. The revision was, therefore, incompetently heard. If this be so, then the final order is that of the Additional Settlement Commissioner which also is against the petitioner and that yet stands.

In any view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioner has no genuine cause for complaint. The question of the divisibility of the house was a matter exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Settlement authorities and since they had decided to divide the house and one house has been allotted to the petitioner, he has got all that he could possibly get under the evacuee Laws. He has no further locus stands to complain against any other. Justice has, therefore, been fully done.

We see no reason to interfere. This petition is, 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.