Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for appeal Leave to Appeal No. 99‑R of 1975, decided on 11th December 1975.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, made on 11‑7‑1975 in Review Application No. 120 of 1975).

--‑ Par&. 4(G)‑Transfer to locals‑‑‑No material supporting contention of house being valued at Rs. 10,00) or less‑Transfer documents having price evaluated at Rs. 12,t‑OC‑‑Mere submission contained in petition regarding valuation of house being Rs. 10,000 or less No evidence‑‑Petitioner, a local, held, not entitled to transfer of house under Scheme No. 1.

‑

---- S. 20 read with Limitation Act (1X of 1908), S. 5‑Limitation‑Condonation of delay‑‑House disposed of under ear‑marking Scheme and transferee apprising tenant of such transfer by statutory notice under S. 30, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958‑Service of such notice followed by prolonged proceedings for ejectment of tenant culminating in order of Supreme Court and written undertaking of tenant to vacate premises within 3 months‑No mention ever made by tenant of pendency of his L. H. form during all these years Tenant's later application before Settlement authority for transfer of house to him on basis of his L. H. form‑A dishonest move Settlement authority's order in revision condoning delay in filing application‑Arbitrary and capricious‑ Quad‑judicial authorities also required to exercise discretion in judicial and rational manner, living reasons for their decision‑No explanation for condoning 'clay forthcoming on record‑‑‑High court's order setting aside Settlement authority's order, held, eminently just and proper.

Samad Mahmood, Advocate and Moor Ahmad Noori. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 11th December 1975.

‑The dispute in this case concerns house No. 156, situate in Model Town, A‑Block, Lyallpur‑ It was occupied by Sh. Abdur Rauf, the predecessor‑in-interest of the two petitioners before us. It was transferred under the car‑marking Scheme to respondents Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Sharif on 13‑12‑59. In due course, transfer document were issued in their favour.

It is admitted that hereafter the respondents served upon Sh. Abdur Rauf a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation; Act. 1973, limitation the fact of transfer of the house in their favour and calling upon him to pay rent, In 1963, they filed an ejectment application against him before the Rent Controller Lyallpur, which was, however, dismissed on 3‑12‑63. The respondents thereupon preferred an appeal which was accepted by the learned District Judge, Lyallpur, by his order dated 3‑7‑64, and the ejectment of Sh. Abdur Rauf was ordered. He latter filed a second appeal in the High Court which was dismissed, where upon he moved a petition for special leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, but the same was rejected oat the 6th of April 1973. By this order Sh. Abdur Rauf was given three months time to vacate the premises, and he was required to file a written undertaking in this behalf.

Sh. Abdul Rauf, however, did not comply with this direction, acct instead, on the 19th of May 1973, he filed an application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lyallpur, alleging that his L H form .Fled on 4‑8‑59 for the transfer of this house had Jot wet been disposed of. This application was however, rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order dated the 23rd of May 1973, Thereupon, Sh. Abdur Rauf filed an appeal which was, however, treated as a revision by the Additional Settlement Commissioner in the exercise of his revisions powers as a Settlement Commissioner, and accepted by his order dated the 23rd of September 1973. He directed that the LH forth submitted by Sh. Abdur Rauf be disposed of on merits in accordance with law.

This order of the learned Ad4itional Settlement Commissioner, reopening the whole matter, was challenged by the respondents by means of a wrist petition before the Lahore High Court. During the pendency of this petition Sh. Abdur Rauf died on 6‑6‑73 and was substituted by the present petitioners as his legal heirs. The writ petition was accepted by High Court by its order dated 3-7-75, holding that tire transfer of the house having been made nearly fourteen years ago could not be permitted to be reopened, especially in view of the fact that during the prolonged litigation for his ejectment, Sh. Abdur Rasf had at no stare mentioned about his pending LH form, and had on the contrary given an undertaking in the Supreme Court that he would vacate the premises within three months of the Supreme Courts order dated the 6th of April 1973. The High Court has further held that in any case the values of the house was more than Rs. 10.000, and, therefore the same could not have been transferred to a local like Sh. Abdur Rauf. It appeared to the High Court that after the issuance of the P. T. J. the Settlement authorities had no jurisdiction to deal with the property and that the LH form relied upon by Sh. Abdur Rauf was probably a spurious document.

In seeking leave to appeal against this order of the High Court, it is contended by Mr. Samad Mahmood, learned counsel for the petitioners, that LH form of Sh. Abdul Rauf not having been disposed of in accordance with law, the house in dispute was not at all available for disposal under the ear‑marking Scheme, and in these circumstances to question of limitation would arise for the setting aside of an illegal order which was without jurisdiction. It is next submitted that the High Court was in error in thinking that the evaluation price of the house was above Rs. 10,000.

We may say at once that there is no material on the record to support the contention that the evaluation price of the house is Rs. 10,000 or less. Learned counsel placed reliance only on the submission contained in paragraph 2 of the present petition. It is char that this is no evidence in support of his assertion; on the contrary, he concedes that in the transfer documents issued in favour of the respondents the evaluation price is enter as Rs. 12,000. Throughout the proceedings between the parties, there was no other evidence having a bearing on this point. It is clear, therefore, that on this short ground alone rte late Sh. Abdur Rauf could not have obtained the transfer of this house against his L H form under Settlement Scheme No. I.

In any case, the fact remains that the house was disposed of under the ear‑marking Scheme on 13‑12‑59, after which Sh. Abdur Rauf was apprised of the transfer in favour of the respondents by means of the statutory notice prescribed by section 30 of the Act. The service of this notice was followed by prolonged proceedings for his ejectment, culminating in the order of the Supreme Court dated the 6th of April 1973, and a written undertaking given by him to vacate the premises within three months of this order. There is no explanation whatsoever regarding the failure of Sh. Abdur Rauf to mention the pendency of his L H from during all these years, Having given a solemn undertaking in the Supreme Court to vacate the premises within three months of the date of the Court's order, the gentleman acted dishonestly by moving an application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for the transfer of the property to him. There being no explanation for the delay that had occurred on his part to agitate the matter of his pending L H from the learned Judge in the High. Court was right in holding that the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, acting to revision, had condoned the delay in an arbitrary and Capricious mariner. It is well‑settled that even quasi‑judicial authorities are required to exercise their discretion in a judicial and rational manner, giving reasons for their decisions. In the present case, there was no explanation whatsoever forthcoming on the record. The delay would not have been fatal if it could be shown that Sh. Abdur Rauf was not aware of the disposal of the house under the ear‑marking Scheme, but that was not so.

We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Judge in the High Court has indeed passed an eminently just and proper order, and no justification is made out for our interference in the matter. The petition, accordingly, fails and is hereby 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.