Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 923 of 1974, decided on 3rd December, 1979.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the. Court dated 22‑10‑1974 in W. P. 502 of 1972).

‑‑Sched., Part I‑Transfer of property‑Form for transfer of property, delayed and delay not condoned‑Petitioner sleeping over matter and allowing auction of such property to proceed‑‑Held, transa ction of auction; having attained finality, could not be re‑opened.

C. M. Latif Rawn, Advocate and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 3rd December, 1979

‑‑The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court. Lahore, dated 22nd of October, 1974, by which Writ Petition No. 502‑R of 1972 was dismissed,

The dispute relates to the transfer of house No.' T‑599/IV situate in Mohallah Shah Chan Chiragh, Rawalpindi. Though the petitioner occupied, it since 1948, he did not apply for its transfer under Scheme No. I, but on 6th of February, 1968, he applied to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for the condonation of delay to Ming the Form under Scheme No. VIII; which was sent to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, on 1st of April, 1969, for his report on the querry as to his entitlement and also whether this house was available for transfer. However, no report was sent till 1971 when, on inspection; the petitioner learnt that the house had been auctioned on 30th of October; 1968 to the first respondent and suction confirmed on 8th of November, 1968. He filed an appeal on 27th of September, 1971, before the Additional Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed by order dated 29th of December, 1971. Thereafter, he filed a revision before the Settlement Commissioner on 3rd of June, 1972, which too was dismissed by order dated 20th of June, 1972. The peti tioner next challenged these orders in the High Court through the aforementioned writ petition but did not succeed.

The High Court held that as the delay was not condoned, the Form was not legally entertain able ; and as he was guilty of laches in not ques tioning the auction this was also a formidable hurdle in his way and the Additional Settlement Commissioner rightly held that his appeal was belated which order was upheld in revision. Accordingly, the High Court held that as the P. T. D. had been issued in favour of the auction purchaser, the question as to the legality of the auction could not be re opened.

In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi dated 4th of September 1971, for submitting that till the submission of his report, on the querry raised by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the house could not be disposed of by auction. This submission is without substance as without the condonation of delay the Form could not be regarded as properly presented and if he was keen for its transfer, he should not have, slept over the matter and allowed the auction to proceed which transaction, having attained finality, could not be‑re‑opened.

Accordingly, the petition has no substance 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.