Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 158‑R of 1975, decided on 8th January 1976.

(4n appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 27‑5‑1975 in Writ Petition No. 583‑R of 1970).

-----Sched., Part I read with Settlement Scheme No. 1, para. 4‑Respon dent's N. C. H. form dismissed without any notice to respondent‑‑ Order of transfer in favour of petitioner suffering from interpolation and its original not forthcoming‑Appendix of property transferred to petitioner and C. S. form also missing‑‑High Court's view that in such nebulous state of affairs, respondent's N. C. H. fort could not be said to have been considered in accordance with law and transfer, if any, of premises in dispute in favour of petitioner not bona fide‑Settlement file not showing whether petitioner at all applied for transfer of disputed chaubara alongwith shop‑High Court's order, held, perfectly just and proper‑Contention that respondent's appeal before Settlement Commissioner being hope lessly barred by limitation and rightly dismissed as such, High Court erred in granting redress to respondents in writ jurisdiction and in remanding case for fresh decision repelled.‑[Writ].

Samad Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 8th January 1976.

This petition is from the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 27‑5‑1975 whereby Writ Petition No. 583 of 1975 was accepted and the case was remanded to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner "to decide the same afresh in accordance with law" after hearing the parties concerned.

The dispute concerns the transfer of a chaubara No. C‑335 which appear to be on the top of a shop No. 335‑A, Mod Bazar. Rawalpindi. It is not disputed that the respondent's predecessor. Mirza Ahsan Ali Beg, was allottee in possession of the chaubara and after his death the respondents continue to be in its possession. Ahsan Ali Beg, during hits lifetime filed N.C.H. form for the transfer of the chaubara. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 14‑12‑1959 rejected his form and transferred property No. C‑335‑A to the petitioner herein on the ground that he was a claimant and a prior allottee. It is not certain whether the transfer in favour of the petitioner included the chaubara as well. .

It appears that sometimes after the transfer in his favour, the petitioner gave a notice to the respondents on the premise that he was transferee, of the chaubara as well under the aforesaid order in his favour. The respon dents at this stage filed what purported to be a revision before the Settlement Commissioner challenging the transfer of the chaubara in their possession in favour of the petitioner. An appeal being available, the revision was dismissed summarily on that ground. This was followed by a belated appeal by the respondents which was dismissed as barred by limitation. A further revision taken to the Settlement Commissioner also failed.

Haying thus exhausted their remedies on the settlement side, the respon dents filed writ petition which was accepted by the impugned order. The learned Single Judge found that the N.C.H. form filed by Ahsan Ali Beg was dismissed without any notice to him, From the settlement file it also appeared that originally the shop No. C‑335‑A vas transferred to the petitioner though later by an interpolation No. C‑‑335 was also added in the copy of the order but the original was not forthcoming. The appendix 6f the property transferred to the petitioner and the C. S. form were also missing, it was in this nebulous state of affairs that the learned Single Judge took the view that the N. C. H. form filed by the respondents' predecessor was never considered in accordance with law and that the transfer, if any, of the choubara in favour of the petitioner was not "bona fide".

We have heard the petitioner's learned counsel at some length. His main grievance was that the respondents' appeal before the Additional Settlement Commissioner after the summarily dismissal of the revision, was hopelessly barred by limitation and rightly dismissed as such. The High Court was therefore, in error to grant them redress in writ jurisdiction remanding the case for a fresh decision.

As pointed out already, the settlement file did not show whether the petitioner had at all applied for the transfer of the chaubara alongwith the Shop. There was nothing to show either that Ahsan Ali Beg s N. C. H. form was rejected after notice to him. In these circumstances of the case, the High Court's order is perfectly just and proper.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Petition 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.