Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 132‑R of 1975, decided on 10th December 1975.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, made on 24‑7‑1975, in N. W. P. No. 28-R of 1972).

---S. 2 read with Sched Part II‑"transfer of shop‑Petitioner coming into possession of shop in 1966 as against prescribed date of 20‑12‑1958‑‑Not deemed to be in possession as defined in S. 2 Petitioner as such not vested with any right to obtain property tin basis of possession‑Shop put to auction twice but petitions taking no interest in proceedings‑Petitioner a failing to apply for transfer by negotiations ever by date specific by Settlement Authority but suddenly entering picture sometime afterwards on sensing that negotiations with opposite‑party were about to be concluded‑‑Held : even though petitioner's application could in lays tae permissible no right, in circumstances of case, vested in petitioner to have negotiations with opposite‑party interrupted Petitioner disentitled to transfer of property by his own in action.

---Sched , Part II--‑Properties ordinarily ought to be disposed of at highest possible price for benefit of compensation pool‑Rule, however, not inflexible and universally applicable irrespective of circumstances and equities of a particular case.

Ch. Morad Ali, Advocate and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents.

Date of hearing; 10th Member 1975.

‑The dispute in this case concerns an evacuee shop situate on Jinnah Road, Murree. The petitioner Mohammad Adam claims that he has beta in possession of a portion thereof since 1966, the other por tion being in the possession of rune Abdul Razzaq. It is not necessary to recite at any length the various phases of the disposal of this shop, and it would suffice to say that it was pit to auction twice, but no bids were re ceived. As a last resort it eras included in the list of properties to be disposed of by private negotiations. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner invited applications in this behalf by the 15th of March 1971. It appears that Abdul Razzaq was neat interested in the property, nor was the petitioner at that stage. The respondent Badarul Islam applied for the transfer of this property nor the due date, offering, Rs. 15,000. While the offer made by Badarul Islam was still under negotiations, the petitioner also made an application on the 27th of July 1971 offering to purchase the property. However, on the, 28^{th of} July 1971 the Settlement Commissioner made an order rejecting Badarul Islam's offer of Rs. 15.000 but directed that the property be transferred in tam if he were to offer Rs, 20,040.

On the 27th of August 1971, the petitioner made another application offering Rs. 23,000 or tire shop, but in disregard of this offer the property was transferred to Badarul Islam for Rs‑ 20,000 by means of an order made on 9-11‑71.

On 2‑1‑72, the petitioner made a miscellaneous application to the Settlement Commissioner requesting him for the deposal of his applications of the 27th of July 1971 and the 27th of August 1971. These applications were, however, rejected by the Settlement Commissioner, by his order dated the 29th of February 1972, observing that it was too late for the petitioner to be considered, as he bad not applied by the due date.

Aggrieved by this order of the Settlement Commissioner, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court but his petition was dismissed by a learned Single 1wige by his order dated on 24th of July 1975. The learned Judge has taken the view that the petitioner having made his offer after the due date, there was no obligation on the Settlement commissioner to consider his offer by interrupting the negotiations which were being carried on with Badarul Islam in pursuance of his earlier application.

Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that the learned Judge in the High Court has erred in law in trot giving effect to the dictum of this Court in Ch. Altaf Hussain's case (PLD 1965 S C 68) in which it has been clearly laid down that the Chief Settlement Commissioner has no power to prescribe a final chic for the receipt of applications for the transfer of evacuee property, and that even belated applications could be considered if the property is still available. It is next contended that in any case the petitioner having offered Re. 23,000 on the 27^th of July 1971, the Settlement Commissioner had no authority to transfer the property to I3adarul Islam for a lower price on the nest day. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has drawn our attention to instructions appearing on page 522 of Latif's book Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, which enjoin that the properties which could not be disposed of by open auction should be disposed of lay negotiations to their occupants.

From the facts narrated above, it becomes clear that the petitioner was not in possession of this property as defined in the relevant clause of section of the Act, for he came irate its Occupation in 1966 as against the prescribed date of the kith of December 1958.He had, therefore, no vested right to obtain tire property on the .basis of his possession. The shop had been put to auction twice but the petitioner had taken no interest in those proceedings. He failed to apply even by the date, specified by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, namely, the 15th of march 1971. He suddenly entered the picture sin the 27th of July 1971, having anted that negotiations with the respondent Badarul Islam were about to be concluded at Rs. 20,000. Even though in law it was permissible to entertain the petitioner's application we are not persuaded that in the circumstances of this case any legal right vested in the petitioner to have the nay with Badarul Islam interrupted. Ordinarily, the properties ought to be disposed of at the highest possible price for the benefit of the compensation pool, bat this rule cannot be regarded as inflexible, and a, universally applicable irrespective of the circumstances and equities of a particular case. It seems to us that the petitioner in this case had, by his own inaction, disentitled himself to the transfer of this property in preference to Badarul Islam. The view taken by the learned Settlement Commissioner as well as by the High Court appears to be eminently just and proper.

For the foregoing reasons, we do not regard this as a fit case for our interference and accordingly dismiss this petition.

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.