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. K‑43 of 1973, decided on 21st August 1973.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated the 28th February 1973, in Writ Petition No. 283 of 1968).
‑‑ Sched., Part I‑Transfer of house‑C.H. form misplaced, another such form for transfer of property filed, but rejected‑P. T. D. issued to another‑Settlement Commissioner, held, had no jurisdic tion to set aside P. T. D. and transfer property to person whose C.H. form stood rejected.
Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by V. A. Kidwai, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 21st August 1973.
.‑The dispute between the parties is in respect of property bearing No. O. T. F./27‑G. 1., Karachi. It was put to auction but no bid was offered. Subsequently, the respondent No. 2 made the highest offer of Rs. 11,620 which was accepted by the Settlement authorities. A. P. T. O. was issued on the 12th December 1962 and a P. T. D. was issued on the 19th March 1963.
The property in dispute was in occupation; of one Hakim Qutubuddin, the husband of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2. He did not file any form. After the property had been transferred to respondent No. 2, he filed an eviction application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. On the 29th August 1964, the learned Civil Judge and the Rent Controller, directed Hakim Qutubuddin to deposit the arrears of rent and as the same was not deposited, his defence was struck off. Hakim Qutubuddin died and his heirs filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed on the 31st January 1967. On the 16th March 1967, the Rent Controller granted one month's time to the heirs of Hakim Qutubuddin on an undertaking that they would vacate the premises by the 12th April 1967. During this period the petitioners filed a revision application before the Settlement Commissioner alleging shat there was a previous transferee of property in question and the subsequent transfer of the same to the res pondent was illegal. This revision petition was allowed, Respondent No. 2 challenged this order in Writ Petition No. 283 of 1968 and a learned Single Judge of the High Court, by judgment dated the 28th February 1973, set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner and restored the property to respondent No. 2. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said order
Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin, learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that Hakim Qutubuddin had filed C.H. form for the transfer of the property on the 30th November 1959 but the same was misplaced and that the learned Settlement Commissioner was perfectly justified in transferring the property in dispute to the petitioners. The learned counsel, however, admitted that another form was filed after the loss of the earlier one was known, and it was rejected on the 4th December 1959. In the presence of this admission, A the form of the petitioners was no longer pending and the Settlement Com missioner was not justified in transferring the property in dispute to the petitioners.
Moreover, P. T. D. had been issued to respondent No. 2 and the Settle ment Commissioner had no jurisdiction to set aside the P. T. D.
After careful consideration of the dispute between the parties, we are satisfied that the High Court has rightly set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner and restored the order of transfer in favour of respondent No. 2. 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