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 No. 106‑R of 1979, decided on 28th October, 1979.
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 6‑3‑1979 of the Lahore High Court at Lahore in Writ Petition No. 1257/1978).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑
‑‑ Art. 185 (3)‑Leave to appeal sought on grounds : (i) Settlement authority required to serve petitioner with a registered acknowledge due notice for payment of transfer price ; (ii) not pasting acknow ledgment due slip in case file ; (iii) in case of petitioner failing to pay, authority could cancel transfer of shop and resume same but that also after copy of order sent to petitioner by post‑Settlement Commissioner, however, giving finding of fact on a registered notice being served on petitioner and for positive findings, question of sending copy to petitioner should have been raised before lower forum‑Petitioner remaining indifferent with regard to action taken by Settlement authorities for a considerably long time as such held not entitled to relief in exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction of High Court‑Constitution of Pakistan (1.973), Art. 199.
Bashir Ahmad Ansari,
Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 28th October, 1979.
J.‑ Through this petition for leave to appeal, the judgment dated 6th March, 1979 by the Lahore High Court whereby a writ petition regarding disposal of a shop under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, was dismissed, has been called in question. The petitioner had purchased the shop in auction in 1960. For ", payment of the transfer price he deposited a Compensation Book which as discovered to be bogus. He was served with a notice to pay the auction price, in 1965. He failed to pay the same. Transfer was cancelled from his name and the property was resumed in the same year 1965. It was gain included in the auction list but was deleted. Ultimately, the respon dent obtained its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VIII in 1974.
The petitioner challenged this transfer through a revision petition which was dismissed on 4th July, 1978. His writ petition in High‑Court has also failed on the ground of the petitioner's own conduct and indifferent attitude for nearly a decade.
Learned counsel has contended that it was incumbent on the Settle ment authority under Settlement Scheme No. VIII, to serve the petitioner with a registered acknowledgment due notice for payment of the price; and paste the acknowledgment due slip in the case file. If the petitioner had failed to pay, then the authority could cancel the transfer and resume the property, but that also after a copy of the order was sent to the petitioner by post. He states that there is nothing on the file to show that all this was done except as noted in the revisional order dated 4th July, 1978 that an unsigned routine note exists in a register and, that no order of resumption was in fact passed in this case.
We have perused the relevant orders. The Settlement Commissioner has given a finding of fact that a registered notice was "served" on the petitioner. If the question of pasting of acknowledgment due slip had been raised during the arguments before him, we might have made enquiry about the same and it might have been found pasted. In any case this part of procedure relied upon is not of basic importance if it is established that a registered notice was in fact served on the petitioner. The order of resumption was also passed, it has been found as a fact. There is no reason to doubt that its copy was not sent to the petitioner. Be that as it may this question, qua, copy, if raised before the lower forum might have resulted in a positive finding. The petitioner it is admitted, has not paid anything towards the price till now. He had become aware of the criminal proceedings qua the Compensation Book‑he himself was an accused in the case. He avoided making payment on flimsy pretext and remained indifferent with regard to the action being taken by Settlement authorities till 1974. He was not entitled to any relief in exercise of discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court. This petition has no force and is accordingly 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