Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 158 of 1973, decided on 15th February 1974.
(On appeal from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi in Constitution Petition No. 188 of 1969 on 28‑9‑1973).
‑‑‑ Sched., Part I‑Transfer of house‑ ‑‑Petitioner claiming transfer of house on basis of purchase at public auction‑--record not supporting claim‑‑‑Neither public notice of auction, nor bid sheet, nor confirmation of sale in petitioner's favour forthcoming No. P. T. O. or P. T. D. issued to petitioner ‑‑‑Petitioner also not able to produce any receipt showing payment of sale price‑Respondent, on other hand, producing P. T. O. and P. T. D. in respect of disputed property‑Petitioner's claim, held, rightly rejected.
K. A. Ghani & Company, Advocate‑on‑Record Karachi and R. H. Farooqi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 15th February 1974.
The petitioner was in occupation of tenement No. G/1, Jiwan Street, Ramsawami, Karachi and the same was transferred to him by the Settlement authorities. He later on got the adjoining tenements Nos. G/2 and G/3 also included in his Provisional Transfer Order. Both the tenements which constituted a separate 'House' were eventually excluded from the transfer in favour of the petitioner and directed to be sold by public auction.
Instead of sale by public auction tenements G/1 and G/2 were ultimately transferred to respondent No. 2 on a Choice Certificate. He had successfully drawn a House under earmarking scheme but the House was found to be no available for transfer.
The petitioner contended the transfer in favour of respondent No. 2 and claimed to have purchased tenements Nos. G/1 G/2 in a public auction. The claim was not supported by departmental Record. Neither public notice of auction, nor the bid sheet, nor confirmation of sale of G/1 and G/2 in favour of the petitioner were forthcoming. Rio P. T. O. or P. T. D. were issued on the basis of the alleged sale by auction in favour of the petitioner. He did not possess even a receipt showing payment of the sale price. On the contrary a P. T. O. and P. T. D. of G/l and G/2 were issued' in' the name of respondent No. 2 and he has paid the evaluation price of both the tenements.
In the circumstances the High Court has ruled out the claim of the petitioner and we fully agree with the view.
The petition for special leave to appeal is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer