Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 302 of 1969, decided on 12th December 1974.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the then High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 5th October 1966, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 912 of 1966).

‑‑‑ S. 10‑Transfer of house and shop‑Dispute over composite property and its valuation between displaced person and local -Contesting parties agreeing to division of property between them in a particular manner‑Property falling to lot of local under agreement below Rs. 10,000 in valuation‑Settlement authority's order giving effect to agreement, held, suffered from no legal defect -Attitude of parties in further agreeing to abide by agreement, during hearing of appeal, hell, not only reasonable but also correct.

M. R. Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.

Screed Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4: Ex pane.

Date of hearing : 12th December 1974.

,‑The appellants are the legal representatives of Ntirza Roora Beg, a claimant displaced person. The respondent, Ghulam Moin‑ud‑Din is a local. The dispute between the parties is over a composite property and its valuation. The property consisted of a shop and a residential portion, which were in possession of Mirza Roora Beg and the respondent respectively.

Both the occupants, Mirza Roora Beg and Ghulam Moin‑ud‑Din applied for the transfer of the property on C. H. and L. H. forms, respectively. On the 10th of December 1959, the parties put in a joint application (vide page 71 of the original Records) agreeing to the division of the property between them in the following manner'.

"The southern portion of the property comprising an area of 23 x 32 will go to Mirza Roora Beg, and the northern portion comprising an area of 35 x 32' will go to Ghulam Moin‑ud‑Din, and the parties will pay proportionate prices in accordance with their respective areas:"

On the 15th of December 1959, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner apparently in accordance with this agreement, transferred the southern portion of the property including the shop to Mirza Roora Beg, and the northern side of the property to Ghulam Moin‑ud‑Din respondent.

On appeal by Mirza Roora Beg against Ghulam Moin‑ud‑Din, the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the 9th of August 1960, held that the value of the property was more than Rs. 10,000 and the respondent being a local was not entitled to its transfer. The Additional Settlement Commissioner was of the view that although the division was based on an agreement between the parties it could not be sustained as it was against the law. The entire property was accordingly transferred to Mirza Roora Beg.

The revision petition by Ghulam Moin‑ud‑Din was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 3rd of October 1961, and the shop only was transferred to Mirza Roora Beg on the basis of his possession of the shop and his application for its transfer. The residential portion of the property was transferred to the auction pool.

On a second revision by the respondent, Malik Fateh Khan, Settlement Commissioner, exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilita tion Commissioner, on an examination of the Assessment Register of the Municipal Corporation, Lahore, for the year ending 1946, held on the 28th of October 1961, that the value of the house was less than Rs. 10,000 and he accordingly transferred the residential portion to the respondent as a local. The aforesaid Assessment Register disclosed that the annual rent of the house including the shop was Rs. 306. On reference to the Assessment Register appearing at page 67 of the Records we find this to be true. That being so the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferring the northern portion to the respondent suffered from no legal defect.

In course of the hearing of the appeal the parties have expressed their desire that they will prefer to abide by their agreement dated the 10th of December 1959. We think this is a reasonable, nay the only correct, attitude on their part, and should be accepted.

We accordingly allow the appeal without any order as to costs, set aside all the orders passed subsequent to the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated the 15th of December 1959, and restore the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated the 15th of December 1959, which gave effect to the agreement dated the 10th of December 1959.

Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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