Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 259 of 1969, decided on 4th December 1974.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 1‑3‑1966 m L. P. A: No. 358 of 1963).

(a) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)

‑‑ S. 10 read with Sched.‑Transfer of house‑Settlement authorities at all levels consistently recording finding for shop in appellant's possession and residential portion in respondent's possession to be two separate and independent units‑Order finalised long ago and never challenged in any forum‑Matter, held, could not be agitated any further.

‑‑‑ S. 10 read with Sched. ‑‑Portions of property independent of each other and treated as separate units‑Appellant not in possession of any portion of disputed house‑Appellant, held, not entitled to claim transfer of disputed portion.

Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Mian Bashir Zaffar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana M. A. Kadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 (vide Court's order dated 29‑9‑1970): Ex parte.

Date of hearing : 4th December 1974.

‑The dispute in this case concerns house No. 696/1/1449‑52 situate in Mohallah Puran Nagar, Sialkot. The appellant claims that he is in possession of one room in this property, which he is using as a shop, whereas the remaining portion is in the occupation of the respondent Major Mohammad Saleh Hashmi for residential purposes. The appellant' further claims that he is a claimant displaced person, whereas the respondent is a local, originally belonging to a village in Sialkot District and having substantial property therein.

By an order made on the 19th of October 1959, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot, transferred the one room shop to the appellant, and rejected his claim to the residential portion on the ground that the shop had no connection with the house, and both the portions were independent units.

Aggrieved by this order the appellant filed an appeal, which was, however, dismissed by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner n 21‑11‑1959. This officer observed that he had visited the site and found hat the room in possession of the appellant was "quite detached from the rest of the house in one corner. It has absolutely no connection with the house."

It appears that the appellant Muhammad Rafique had filed another appeal also against the issuance of Provisional Transfer Deed on 29‑10‑1959 in favour of the respondent in respect of the residential house in dispute contending therein that the respondent was not a displaced person. This appeal was also rejected by the same Additional Settlement Commissioner on the same date, holding that the respondent was to be treated as a displaced person as he was working at Port Blair which was now a part of India.

The appellant was still not satisfied, and invoked the revisional jurisdic tion of the Settlement Commissioner. This officer rejected the revision petition by his order dated the 26th of March 1960, and affirmed the findings recorded by the Courts below to the effect that the shop and the house were two independent units, having no connection with each other. However, by another order passed on the same date, the learned Settlement Commissioner re‑opened the question of the transfer of the house in favour of the respondent, as he was not satisfied t4at the respondent had been rightly treated as a displaced person. He remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot, for fresh decision. By still another order the respondent's application for the transfer of another shop was also rejected on the ground that he was a local.

It appears that the appellant was satisfied with the final result thus achieved by him, namely, that he secured the transfer of the shop in his possession, and succeeded in getting the respondent declared to be a local and, therefore, not entitled to the transfer of the house in dispute, and another property which he was claiming as a shop. The respondent, however, filed a second revision petition which was disposed of as being pre mature by the Settlement Commissioner (Policy) exercising the powers of the Chief Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 18th of May 1960.

It was in these circumstances that the respondent invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court by instituting Writ Petition No. 397/11 of 1960. This petition was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the High Court by his order dated the 18th of June 1963, holding that the respondent was to be deemed to be a displaced person on the authority of the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court in Mahboob Elabi v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Pakistan, Lahore (P L D 1963 Lah. 214).

This decision was challenged by the appellant by filing an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court. The appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench by its order dated the 1st of March 1966, on the ground that the appellant was not a person aggrieved in respect of the house as all the Settlement Authorities had held the house to be independent of the shop and the appellant was not in possession of any portion of the house in dispute. The learned Judges of the Letters Patent Bench did not consider it necessary to examine the question of the status of the respondent.

Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant by this Court on the 23rd of June 1966 to examine the contention that the question whether the respondent Major Mohammad Saleh Hashmi a as a local or a displaced person, was a question of fact, and as such the High Court was not justified in disturbing the said finding of fact which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities.

After examining the various orders made by the Settlement Authorities from time to time, and hearing Mr. Qadir Bakhsh, learned counsel for the appellant, we have formed the view that the question on which leave to appeal was granted does not really arise in the circumstances of the case. It seems to us that the learned Judges of the Letters Patent Bench were right in expressing the view that the appellant was not a person aggrieved in so far as the transfer of the disputed house was concerned. We have already drawn pointed attention to the fact that throughout the protracted litigation between the parties, the Settlement Authorities, at all levels, have consistently recorded the finding that the shop in the possession of the appellant, and the residential portion in possession of the respondent, are two separate and independent units, having no connection with each other. The final order in this behalf was made by the Settlement Commissioner' on 26‑3‑1960, which order was not challenged in any forum by the appellant, A Such being the case, the claim of the appellant to obtain the transfer of this house stood finally negatived on that date, and the said order became final against him. He, therefore, had clearly no locus standi to agitate any further, by means of the present appeal, in so far as the transfer of the disputed house was concerned.

Even if he had not allowed the revisional order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 26th of March 1960 to go unchallenged, he still could not succeed in view of the consistent finding recorded by the Settlement Authorities that the two properties are independent units, and the appellant; is not in possession of any portion of the disputed house. The learned counsel for the appellant is not in a position to cite any provision of law which would entitle the appellant to claim the transfer of the disputed house without being in possession of any portion thereof.

As a result, it is not necessary for us to examine the question on which leave to appeal was granted to the appellant. The appeal is hereby dismissed but the parties are left to bear their own costs.

Appeal 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.