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 Review Petition No 8‑R of 1977, decided on 8th April 1978.
(On review of the order of the Court dated the 29tb November 1976, in C. P. No. 743 of 1974).
‑‑ S. 2(4) second proviso & Settlement Scheme No. 1, para. 19-- Surplus land‑Disposal of‑Alleged excess area not proved to be part of compound of portion of house transferred to petitioner or as being appurtenant thereto‑Excess land disposed of before transfer of half portion of bungalow to petitioner‑Basis of entitlement having not been in existence petitioner, held, not entitled to purchase land at market rate.
Abdul Hamid Khan v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner end others P L D 1966 S C 719 ref.
Sh. Maqbul Ahmad, Advocate and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 8th April 1978.
‑The petitioner seeks review of the order of this Court .dated 29th of November 1976, in Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 743 of 1974, by which leave was refused.
The petitioner is the transferee of the half portion of bungalow No. 23, situate in Civil Lines, Sargodha. But before this portion was transferred to him, surplus land, measuring 11 kanals 14 marlas, attached to the bungalow, was disposed of in two lots of 5 kanals and 7 marlas each, by public auction as building sites. Ultimately it turned out that the land was not I1 kanals and 14 marlas but 8 kanals and 17 marlas. Deceased Mehdi Hassan, the auction‑purchaser of one lot, took possession of the land measuring 5 kanlas and 16 marlas but the other auction‑purchaser, Muhammad Abdullah, with whom respondents 1 to 6 had associated, was not able to get the possession of the land and in the meantime, the petitioner secured the possession of 3 kanals, 7 marlas and 259 Sq. ft. of land on payment of its price at the market rate. Thereupon, the legal representatives of Muhammad Abdullah challenged this transfer in the High Court and succeeded. It was held that the petitioner had no locus standi to obtain the excess land as it was already sold to deceased Muhammad Abdullah before the portion of the bungalow was transferred to the petitioner which finding was upheld by this Court in its aforementioned order.
It was contended that the petitioner was entitled to the excess area of 3 kanals and 7 marlas in accordance with the second proviso to section 2(4) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and this contention was not considered by this Court. Again, it was urged that para. 19 of Scheme No. 1 which permitted the disposal of the surplus land at the market value was not inconsistent with section 2 (4) of the said Act ; and that the cases of other persons were dealt with in accordance with the decision of this Court published as Abdul Hamid Khan v. Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and others (P L D 1966 S C 719) and that this contention was also not dealt with by this Court.
The learned counsel was not able to satisfy us that the excess area measuring 3 kanals and 7 marlas was part of the compound of the portion of the house transferred to him or appurtenant thereto. In the absence of such finding by the settlement authorities, the disposal of the land cannot be assailed on the legal plane as urged. Equally the petitioner could not take the benefit of para. 19 of Settlement Scheme No. 1 as the excess land was disposed of before the transfer of the half portion of the bungalow to him which was the basis of his entitlement to purchase such land at the market rate. Therefore, he was rightly found not to be eligible to purchase this land.
There is, therefore, no force in this petition which 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