Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeals Nos. 277 of 1969 and 3 of 1970, decided on 10^th Septem ber 1975.

(On appeal from the judgments and orders of the then High C oust of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 26th of April 1968, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 72 of 1968, and dated the 5th of June 1969, in Letter Patent Appeal No. 175/R of 1968, respectively).

‑‑ Sched., paras. 15(1), (2), (3), (5) & 15‑A read with Central Govern ment Notification dated 14‑12‑1959 (P L D 1960 Central Statutes 17) Industrial concern, transfer of‑Printing press provisionally allotted to M for a certain period but on expiry of such period, like that of other allottees of other presses, allowed to continue in possession as a matter of grace till fresh allotment made‑Competent autho rity subsequently allotting press to Y, M dispossessed, but put in Appendix B as sleeping partner and paid in respect of his entitlement out of general pool constituted out of surplus contributions made by presses‑‑No appeal or revision filed by M against order of allot ment to Y‑Contention that M having been paid out of compensation pool and put in Appendix B was allottee of press and allotment in favour of Y being made without cancellation of M's allotment, order of allotment in favour of Y was void‑Held : Allotment in favour of M being for a fixed period and subsequently on expiry allowed to continue as a matter of grace till fresh allotment, no question of cancellation of M's allotment arose Y being all along described as allottee and M being described as ex‑allottee without any protest by M, M also found to have been totally dispossessed, M not entitled to transfer of press‑ Y having left presses in India, rightful allottee and in possession of press and fulfilling all conditions laid down in Notification dated 14‑12‑1959 justifiably entitled to transfer.

Hamidullah and others v. Rai Khurshid Ahmad Khan P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 516 ; Badrul Jalil v. Wall Muhammad P L D 1956 S C (Pak.) 259 ; Muhammad Ishaq v. Saiduddin Swaleh P L D 1960 Kar. 48 ; Ghulam Nizamuddin v. Farzand ‑Ali Khan P L D 1961 Lah. 19 ; Imam Din v. Hameed Hussain P L D 1967 Lah. 419 and Riasat Ali v. Bakhtawar Bibi P L D 1968 Lah. 56 held not applicable.

Mahmood Ali Qasuri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (absent on 13‑6‑1975) instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appel lant (in C. A. No. 277/69).

Samad Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No: 1 (in both the Appeals).

Shaukat Ali Malik, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record on behalf of Fazal‑i‑Hussain, advocate‑on- Record (absent on 10, 11, 12‑6‑ 1975) present only on 13-6-1975 for Respon dent No. 2 (in C. A. 277/69, and Appellant (in C. A. 3/76).

Respondent No. 2 (in C. A. 3/70): Ex parte.

Dates of hearing: 10th, 11th, 12th and 13th June 1975.

These two appeals are by special leave of this Court. The dispute between the parties is over the joint transfer to them of Mercantile Press, Lahore, and they have challenged the validity of the order dated the 17th of January 1965, of Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Settlement Commis sioner (Industries), whereby, the joint transfer had been made. Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry is appellant in Civil Appeal No. 277 of 1969 and Mian Muhammad Bakhsh is respondent No. 2 therein. Mian Muhammad Bakhah is appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1970 and Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry is respondent No. 2 therein.

The pertinent facts in respect of the property in dispute may be divided into two phases. The first phase is the period before the commencement of the settlement operations. During this period in the year 1948, Mercantitle Press had been allotted to Mian Mohammad Bakhsh by the Rehabilitation Department. This allotment vas renewed on the 20th of September 1950, for a period of four years ending on the 31st of December 1953. In the meantime the Central Government issued instructions that the possession of allottees of industrial concerns whose terms expired should continue in possession of the presses concern until fresh allot ments were made. In the parawise comments the Secretary, Punjab Industrial Rehabilitation Board submitted to the Custodian in pursuance of the latter's order dated the 3rd of June 1955, the following extract appears

"in fact the presses have been allowed to remain with the allottees as a matter of grace." (Vide page 204 of the paper‑book).

The Punjab Industries Rehabilitation Board, which was competent to make such allotments, held a meeting during the period 11th to the 14th of May 1955. Among, other things, the annual income of the Mercantile Press was assessed at Rs. 6,000 and it was allotted to two persons, namely, Syed Mubarak Ali Shah in respect of his entitlement of Rs. 3,600 and Sh. Abdul Majid in respect of Pigs entitlement of Rs. 2,4000. Vide Annexure 'A' at page 194 of the paper‑book and correspondence at page 101. Annexure 'A' further showed that Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry had been allotted A/Rs. 8,000 share in the Punjab National Press, and that three others also had been allotted the press in different shares amounting to Rs. 7,800. Persons included in this Appendix were alone entitled to bid for appointment as the managing allottee for managing a particular press or presses. By a memorandum dated the 4th of July 1955, Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry was invited to take part in the said bidding. He gave the highest bid of Rs. 12,000 for appointment as the managing allottee of the Mercantile Press, and it was accepted and he was duly appointed as such. Syed Mubarak Ali Shah and Sh. Abdul Majid, who had been allotted the said press, became "sleeping allottees" of the press. Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry was required to give a written undertaking that he would pay the share of other allottees "whose names will be intimated in due course . . . . ".

Mian Muhammad Bakhsh was put in Appendix 'B' along with six other persons. The Appendix is headed as follows:‑

"Persons to be fixed as sleeping partners in Presses".

The category of the said persons as well as their entitlement were also mentioned in Appendix 'B'. So far as Mian Muhammad Bakhsh is concerned he appears at Sr. No. 4 in Appendix 'B' in the following manner

"(4) Mr. Muhammad Bakksh (S. No. 1 of Mercantile Press, Lahore) . . . , A/12,000."

It may be mentioned here that Mian Muhammad Bakhsh had all along been paid out of the Printing Press Pool formed by the Rehabilitation Board from the surplus available from the printing presses and this was his own case vide his letter dated May 1960 ( ) addressed to the Settlement Commissioner (Industries), West Pakistan, Lahore, at page 152 of the paper‑book See also page 152‑A and pages 184 and 185, and order of Muhammad Yaqoob Ali, J. (as he then was) dated the 16th of July 1963, in Writ Petition No. 213‑R of 1961, a photostat copy of which is put on record, as well as Mian Muhammad Bakhsh's own concise statement.

The second phase now begins. On‑ the 11th of August 1959, Mian 'Muhammad Bakhsh complained against Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry and applied for allotment of the mercentitle Press. On the 31st of August 1959, Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry also applied for transfer of the Mercantile Press. On the 21st of Match 1960, Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhri's applica tion was accepted and the Mercantile Press was transferred to him in its entirety. Vide memorandum dated the 21st of March 1960, of the Chief Settlement Commissioner to Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry at page 51 of the paper‑book. On the 4th of July 1960, Mian Muhammad Bakhsh's applica tion was rejected and he was intimated about it. Vide memorandum dated the 4th of July 1960, of the Secretary, West Pakistan Industries Rehabilitation Board to Mian Muhammad Bakhsh at page 52 of the paper book. It is necessary to state here that Mian Muhammad Bakhsh had not filed any appeal or revision from the order dated the 21st of March 1960, transferring the press to Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry or from the order dated the 4th of July 1960, rejecting Mian Muhammad Bakhsh's application for transfer. This fact does not appear to have been noticed in the order of Yaqoob Ali, J. dated the 16th of July 1963, in Writ Petition No. 213‑R of 1961. It appears, however, that on the 25th of November 1960, Mian Muhammad Bakhsh filed a belated application for review before the Chief Settlement Commissioner and the latter by his memorandum dated the 1st of April 1961, informed Mian Muhammad Bakhsh as well as Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry that the press was transferred jointly to both the parties in accordance with the value of their respective claims, namely, 7/10th and 3/10th shares in the press, respectively. Vide pages 53 and 54 of the paper‑book. The order was passed without any notice to Mohammad Yousaf Chaudhry. It may be stated here that the value of the verified claim of Mian Muhammad Bakhsh was Rs. 1,26,000 while that of Mohammad Yousaf was Rs. 54,000.

By the said Writ Petition No. 213‑R of 1961, Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry challenged the order of the Chief Settlement Commissioner dated the 1st of April 1961, before the then High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, and it was accepted and the impugned order was set aside and the case was remanded to the Settlement authorities for deciding the transfer of the press afresh after having given full opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective claims. Consequently, on the 17th of January 1965, Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Settlement Commissioner (Industries), considered the matter afresh, and transferred the Mercantile Press jointly to both the parties according to the same proportion as had been earlier fixed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner.

Both the parties challenged the‑order dated the 17th of January 1965, on two separate Writ Petitions, namely, No. 203‑R of 1965 of Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry and No. 403‑R of 1965 of Mian Muhammad Bakhsh. Both these writ petitions were dismissed on the 11th of April 1968. Both‑ the parties filed Letters Patent Appeals (No. 72 of 1968 by Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry and No. 175 of 1968 by Mian Muhammad Bakhsh) from the order of the learned Single Judge, but they were dismissed in limine on the 25th of April 1968, and 5th of June 1969. Again both of them approached this Court and obtained special leave to appeal. Each of the parties claimed that the entire Mercantile Press should have been transferred to him.

It appears from the record that Mian Muhammad Bakhsh had been first ejected from the press in August 1955 (see page 44 of the paper‑book), and finally from the residential portion of the press soon after the 15th of December 1956. Vide pages 45 to 50 of the paper‑book. According to the concise statement of Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry the latter ejectment took place on the 11th of January 1957. It further appears that Mian Muhammad Bakhsh himself admitted that he was an ex‑allottee of the press in question. Vide his letter to the Rehabilitation Commissioner (General) dated the 7th of April 1956, at page 180 of the paper‑book; his letters dated the 14th of July 1956, and the 18th of September 1956 to the Secretary, Industries Rehabilitation Board at pages 179 and 162 of the paper‑book. The Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore, in his order dated the 7th of December 1935, and the Custodian. Evacuee Property in his order dated the 7th of February 1956, appearing at pages 46‑49 of the paper‑books referred to Mian Muhammad Bakhsh as an ex‑allottee end Mohammad Yousaf Chaudhry as the new allottee of the Mercanthe Press. The Secretary, West Pakistan Industries Rehabilitation Board in his letter crated the 15th of December 1956, at page 50 of the paper-books also described Mian Muhammad Bakhsh as the ex‑allottee. Mian Muhammad Bakhsh never for once protested to such description or during all those tines ever claimed that he was the allottee of Mercanthe Press and that Mohammad Yousaf Chaudhry was a mere manager holding the press on behalf of all the allottees of the press including Mian Muhammad Bakhsh. The contention now advanced on behalf of Mian Muhammad Bakhsh that this misdescription about him had been due to his misconception of the legal position is clearly an afterthought, and I find it difficult to accept it at this stage.

Furthermore, Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry had been put in possession of the press sometime in the year 1955, and thereafter of the residential portion of the press on ‑or about the 11th of January 1957, after Mian Muhammad Bakhsh bad been ejected therefrom."

The case of Mian Muhammad Bakhsh is that Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry was neither eligible under section 15(2) of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, for the allotment of the Mercanthe Press, nor had he ever been an allottee of the press Mian Muhammad Bakhsh, however, admits that the press was in the actual physical possession of Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry, but submits that such possession was on account of Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhri's purchase of the right of management of the press on behalf ref the allottees of the press, namely, Mian Muhammad Bakhsh and the aforesaid Syed Mubarak Eli Shah and Sh. Abdul Majid. Mian Muhammad Bakhsh claimed that he was the allottee of the press, and that it was transferred to him alone as the other two allottees had neither left a press in India nor applied for transfer of the Mercanthe Press.' Furthermore the allotment of Mian Muhammad Bakhsh had never been cancelled. Mian Muhammad Bakhsh claimed that he had been included by the aforesaid Board in the list of sleeping allottee i.e., the aforesaid Appendix B' and that he was described therein at Sr. No, 1 of the Mercanthe Press which showed that he was an allottee of the said preys, Mien Muhammad Bakhsh has, however, admitted, as noticed already, that his share money of Rs. 1,200 per annum was paid to him by the department out of the income of presses in general.

'Mian Muhammad Bakhsh has contended before us that he is the sole allottee of the Mercanthe Press and in support of this he has relied on Appendix B'. He also seeks to derive support in this connection by claiming that his allotment of the press was never cancelled. As regards this cancellation it may be stated that his original allotment had expired on the 31st of December 1953, and thereafter he had been allowed to continue in possession of the press as a matter of grace until its fresh allotment in l the year 1955. According to the policy in respect of the allotment of the Industrial undertakings as laid down by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Refugees and Rehabilitation in its letter dated the 9th of July 1953, at page 199 of the paper‑book it was, inter alia, stated

"(1) . . . . the Central Government having carefully considered the proposals and comments received from ,the various Rehabilitation Authorities regarding extension of the period of allotment of the industrial concerns all of which expire on the 31st December 1953, have decided that the properties in question may be allotted for another term of two years subject to the condition that the allotments shall be liable to termination at the option of the Government on three months' notice but that the existing allotments are not to be extended automatically as it has been observed that they were not made systematically and according to the principles laid down for the proper rehabilitation of the industry as well as refugees, with the result that they are held in a large number of cases by locals or undeserving and unsuitable refugees. It has, therefore, been decided that all existing properties should be re‑advertised and fresh allotments made before the 1st January 1954. In order to rectify the mistakes of the past a concurrent inquiry should be made by the Board with a view eventually to weeding out unsuitable allottees

(2) As regards fresh allotments on the expiry of the existing term, I am to say that no distinction should be made between the refugees from agreed and non‑agreed areas and in making allotments preference should be given in the following orders:‑

(a) Refugee who originally belonged to the territories now forming part of India and who abandoned similar concerns.

(b) Refugee who originally belonged to the territories now forming part of India and who abandoned other industrial concerns.

(c) .

(d) Refugees who abandoned urban income bearing property other than industrial concerns.

(e)

(3) I am to request that the work of the scrutiny of the existing allotments may kindly be started immediately in accordance with the principles laid down in paras. I and 2 above so that tire Board may be in a position to make allotments afresh to suitable parties, the present allottees, if they are the most suitable or new ones . . . . . '.

The policy contemplated that there should not be automatic extension of existing allotments and that all existing properties should be re‑advertised and fresh allotments made. Also there was to be a concurrent inquiry by the Board with a view to weeding out undesirable allottees. It may be mentioned here that at the time of the meeting of the Board in May 1955. Mian Muhammad Bakhsh was treated as an undesirable person for the purpose of management of a printing press, and this was the reason he was not included among the allottees of the press who could bid for appointment as the managing allottee. The fact, however, remains that in pursuance of the aforesaid policy there was neither any extension nor fresh allotment of the a press in favour of Mian Muhammad Bakhsh. Thus, after the expiration of the term of allotment of Mian Muhammad Bakhsh and the period of grace allowed to him there was no extension or fresh allotment in his favour. The question of cancellation, therefore, does not arise, and it has been misconceived.

As regards Appendix B', it has been clearly misconceived by Mr. Bashir Ahmad, Settlement Commissioner (Industries) as well as by the learned Judges of the Single and Division Benches of the High Court. They all fell into the error that the persons mentioned in Appendix 'B' were allottees of the press mentioned against their names. It was here that they all fundamentally went wrong with the result that their conclusions became affected, and they cannot be sustained. "Sr. No. 1 Mercanthe Press, Lahore", against the name of Mian Muhammad Bakhsh in Appendix B', as has rightly been pointed out by Mr. Qasuri, has reference to his being applicant No. 1 for the transfer of Mercanthe Press vide pages 231‑233 of the paper-book. It does not mean that he was an allottee of the press. Similar description of the other six persons in the Appendix confirms this view. Vide pages 212 214, 219, 237. 239 and 241 of the paper‑book. The heading of the Appendix shows that the persons were "to be fixed as sleeping partners in presses". No order has been produced to show that Mian Muhammad Bakhsh was ever fixed as sleeping partner of the Mercanthe Press or any other press. There is nothing to show that his entitlement was being paid from the income of Mercanthe Press. As has been noticed already, it is hit own case as well as the ease of the authorities concerned that he was being paid from the general pool constituted out of surplus contributions made by 'the presses that had surplus. ,

On the contrary, Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry has been allotted the Mercanthe Press. He was described by the authorities concerned as new allottee' of the press vis‑a‑vis Mian Muhammad Bakhsh described a ex‑allottee' of the press all along without any protest by Mian Muhammad Bakhsh. Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry had been put in full possession of the press and its buildings, 'and Mian Muhammad Bakhsh was totally dis possessed and ejected from them. Mian Muhammad Bakhsh at no time earlier had pleaded that he was an allottee of the press and was in any event in constructive possession of the press through Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry and could not therefore be physically ejected from the press or at least from the dwelling portion of the press building.

All these clearly establish the fact that on the date Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry and Mian Muhammad Bakhsh had applied for the transfer of the press the former was an allottee and in possession while the latter was neither an allottee nor in possession, and thus not qualified for transfer of the press according to law.

The law governing the facts of the case is contained in Paragraphs 15(1), (2), (3) and (5) and 15‑A of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and the Central Government Notification (Press Note) dated the 14th of December 1959, (for the Notification see P L D 1960 Central Statutes, page 17), and they are as follows:--

-Every Industrial concern or a cinema house shall, subject to the provisions of the following sub‑paragraphs, be sold in an unrestricted public auction.

(2) If an Industrial concern or a cinema house allotted by the Industries Rehabilitation Board constituted under the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956 (XLII of 1956), is in the possession of a claimant, who has left in India or any area occupied by India is a registered Industrial concern or a cinema house or whose verified claim under Schedule III to the Registration of Claims (Displaced Persons) Rules; 1955, is of the value of Rupees one lac or more, then the Industrial concern or the cinema house in the possession of such claimant shall, in case he applies in that behalf, be transferred to him on payment immediately of the prevailing market value minus the investment made, if any:

Provided that if the claimant concerned has abandoned a share in a registered industrial concern or a cinema house, the industrial concern or the cinema house in his possession shall not be transferred to him unless his verified claim in respect of such share is rupees thirty‑three thousand or more.

(3) if an Industrial concern or a cinema house, not allotted by the aforesaid Industries Rehabilitation Board, is in the possession of a displaced person or a local, then such concern or cinema house shall, in case he applies in that behalf, be transferred to him on payment of its prevailing market value minus the investment made, if any.

(4) ..

(5) Not more than one Industrial concern or cinema house be transferred to any one person under sub‑paragraph (2), or sub‑paragraph (3) or sub‑paragraph (4).

In this paragraph

(a) "investment made" means an amount sanctioned by a Custodian or a competent Rehabilitation authority or the Chief Settlement Commis sioner on an application made on or before the 20th day of December 1958 ; and

(b) "Registered Industrial Concern" means a factory which stood registered under the Factories Act, 1934 on the fourteenth day of August 1947."

Notwithstanding anything contained in paragraph 15, the Central Government may make any order for the disposal of any class of Industrial concerns or cinema houses in such manner as may be specified therein."

The extended definition of possession has no application in the present case.

Central Government Notification (Press Note) dated the 14th of December

1959:--

No. F. 3(1)159‑SO (Cams), 14th December 1959 (Gazette, Extraordinary 14th December 1959).‑In continuation of the Ministry of Rehabilita tion Order No. F 3(1)/59‑SO (Clms), dated the 19th October 1959, and in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under paragraph 15‑A of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita tion) Act, 1958 (XXVIII) of 1958), the Central Government is pleased to make the following order for the disposal of industrial concerns and cinema houses:‑

(1) If a printing press allotted by the Industries Rehabilitation Board constituted under the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956 (XLII of 1956) is in the possession of a claimant who has left in India or in any area occupied by India a printing press in the possession of such claimant shall, in case he applies in that behalf, be transferred to him on payment immediately of the prevailing market value minus the investment made, if any.

(2) If any local or displaced person has invested in any engineering concern, not being an engineering concern transferred under sub‑part. (2) or sub‑part. (4) of Paragraph 15 of the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, not less than fifty percent of the prevailing market value of the machinery installed therein, then such engineering concern shall, in case such local or displaced person applies in that behalf, be transferred to him on payment immediately of the prevailing market value minus the investment made, if any.

(3)

(4)

It is, thus, evident that the Notification issued by the Central Govern ment under Paragraph 15‑A (this paragraph was introduced on the 26th of March 1938, by Ordinance III of 1959) applies to the case. Under this Notification the following four conditions have been laid down for allotment of a press

(1) The press was allotted to the claimant under the Pakistan Rehabilita tion Act, 1956;

(2) The claimant is in possession of the press;

(3) The claimant has left in India, etc. a printing press (Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry left a press and 1/4th share in one press at Bombay, India); Vide page 215 of the paper‑book; and

(4) The claimant has applied for transfer of the press.

"Possession" has been defined thus in section 2(6) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958:‑

Possession' means possession obtained in pursuance of an order passed on or before the 20th day of December 1958, by Rehabilitation Authority or any other officer authorised or permitted by the Central or Provincial Governments 1.

Provided that if a question arises whether an officer was so authorised or permitted the decision of the Chief Settlement Commissioner in that behalf shall be final:

Provided further that the Central Government may, by order in writing direct that a class or classes of such persons as have not obtained possession as aforesaid shall subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order, be deemed to be in possession for the purpose of this Act."

Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry had fulfilled all the four conditions laid down in the aforesaid Notification. He had left a press and a 1/4th share in another press at Bombay‑(India), while Mian Muhammad Bakhsh did not fulfil conditions Nos. (1) and (2) and was therefore not eligible for transfer of the Mercanthe Press. The decision of this Court in the case of Hamidullah and others v. Rai Khurshid Ahmad Khan (P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 516) relied on by Mian Muhammad, Bakhsh has no application to the facts of the case. In the case under report the claimant‑was actually an allottee of the cinema in question as his entitlement was paid out of the income of the cinema. In the present case as has been noticed already Mian Muhammad Bakhsh on the crucial date was neither an allottee of the Mercanthe Press nor did he receive his entitlement out of the income of the press. His own case as well as the admissions of the authorities concerned show that Mian Muhammad Bakhsh was paid from the general pool of printing presses. It is idle to contend, as has been contended, that inasmuch as he received‑his entitlement from such general pool, he must be considered as an allottee of the Mercanthe Press', or an allottee of all the presses' whose contributions constituted the general pool. From the order of Mr. Kh. Mahmood Sadiq, Secretary, Punjab Industries Rehabilitation Board dated the 5th of August 1955, at page 43 of the paper‑book‑it is crystal clear that Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry was asked to first deduce his entitlement from the income of Mercanthe Press and then to pay the surplus to the other allottees to be intimated to him by the authorities. Incidentally it may be stated here that by reason of this order Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhry had become a allottee of the Mercanthe Press although he had originally applied for allotment of the Punjab National Press. After the deduction on his own account there was hardly left a sufficient amount to pay the two other allottees viz. Syed Mubarak Ali Shah ‑and Sh. Abdul Maid. No scope was thus left for accommodating any other allottee.

It may be stated here that the Court asked respondent No. 1 Settlement Commissioner (Industries) to furnish information whether the persons mentioned in Appendix B' at page 198 of the paper‑book were transferred any press or presses. Mr. Samad Mahmood, who appeared on behalf of the said respondent, has since supplied the information contained in his letter dated the 28th of June 1975. The gist of the information is that none of the persons mentioned in the said Appendix except those mentioned at Sr. Nos. 4 and 6 has been transferred any press. Sr. No. 4 is 'Mian Muhammad Bakhsh (a party in the two appeals before us) and he has been transferred a 7/10th share in the Mercanthe Press and this transfer is the subject‑matter of dispute between the parties in the two appeals before us. Sr. No. 6 is Mr. Sultan Muhammad. He has been transferred Naubabar Printing Press, Multan, on evaluation basis.

Thus the view I have taken in regard to Appendix B' finds support from the information supplied on behalf of the Settlement Commissioner (Industries) respondent No. 1 herein.

The following cases which were cited before the Court on behalf of Mian Muhammad Bakhsh have no application to the facts of the present case

(1) P L D 1956 S C (Pak.) 259:

(2) P L D 1960 Kar. 48 ;

(3) P L D 1961 Lah. 19 ;

(4) P L D 1967 Lah. 419. In this case the person concerned had been given a right to share in the income of the particular evacuee property and it was, therefore, held that he could claim to be in possession of that right or interest of that property.

(5) P L D 1968 Lah. 56 and 770.

I would, accordingly, allow Civil Appeal No. 277 of 1969, but in view of the special circumstances of the case, without any order as to costs. I, however, feel that arrangements should be made to pay the acknowledged entitlement of Mian Muhammad Bakhsh who, too, had abandoned in India considerable properties including a printing press.

Civil Appeal No. 3 of 1970 is dismissed without costs

‑-I agree:

I agree.

S. A. H. Orders accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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