Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 1020 of 1976, decided on 20th March, 1982.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 30‑8‑1976 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 929/11 and 1077/11 of 1974, respectively).

---Rr. 4, 6 & 7‑Conflicting opinions existing on question whether settlement authorities could, after issuance of Permanent Transfer Deed, re‑open matter‑Question, held, requires to be re‑examined‑ Leave to appeal granted‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3).

Anwar Hussain v. sarfraz Ahmad P L D 1971 S C 669; Aminuddin v. Settlement Commissioner 1973 S C M R 624; Murid Hussain v. Muhammad Yousuf Ali 1974 S C M R 8 Faizul Haque Khan v. Abdul Hamid 1976 S C M R 429; Ahmad Shah v. Fazal Rahim 1975 S C M R 268 and Muhammad Anwar v. M. A. Wasti 1975 S C M R 372 ref‑.

Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

A. R. Shaukat, Senior, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 3.

Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Senior, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

A. R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masud Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing: 20th March, 1982.

‑The transfer of the shop in question had been ordered in 1959, and after the litigation that arose from the transfer was finally settled by the Revisional Authority in 1962, a P. T. D. was issued in 1968. However, on 4‑2‑1974, the transfer was annulled by the Settlement Commissioner in the exercise of his suo motu revisional jurisdiction and the Deputy Settlement Commissioner was directed to dispose of the property under the law. It is to be noted that the P. T. D. holders had no notice of the suo motu revision. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, as directed by the Settlement Commissioner, made a fresh order of transfer on 16‑3‑1974 in favour of another person. Kamal Din, a vendee from Majid Asghar, one of the P. T. D. holders, challenged the order by filing Writ Petition No. 929/11 of 1974, but the same was dismissed on 30‑8‑1976. He thereupon moved Civil Petition No. 1020 of 1976 for leave to appeal.

2. The other petition for grant of leave, i. e. No. 1028 of 1976, has been filed by Muhammad Siddique and others who were among the applicants for transfer before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner but had remained unsuccessful. Their writ petition bearing No. 1077/11 of 1974 had also failed.

3. The question that arises, inter alia, is whether the Settlement authorities could, after the P. T. D. had issued, re‑open the matter. In Anwar Hussain v. Sarfraz Ahmad PLD1971SC669, this Court had held that after the issue of P. T. D. the Settlement authorities became functus officio and their power to deal with the property was barred by rule 4 of the Permanent Transfer (Houses and Shops) Rules, 1961, except in the case of misrepresenta tion or fraud as covered by rules 6 and 7. These rules 6 and 7 were deleted on 2‑3‑1964 and 27‑12‑1964, respectively and it was held in Aminuddin v. Settlement Commissioner 1973SCMR624 that the Settlement authorities were left with no power to deal with the property in respect of which P. T. D. had issued, after the deletion of the said rules 6 and 7. Similar view had been expressed in Murid Hussain v. Muhammad Yousuf Ali 1974 S C M R 8 and Faizul Haque Khan v. Abdul Hamid 1976 S C M R 429. A different view had, however, been taken in Ahmad Shah v. Fazal Rahim 1975 S C M R 268 and Muhammad Anwar v. M. A. Wasti 1975 S C M R 372, in the same report at page 372, and it had been held that the deletion of rule 7 did not foreclose the jurisdiction of the Settlement Authorities to uncover cases of fraud and illegalities.

4. The point involved, therefore, requires to be re‑considered. We accordingly grant leave in both the petitions. Security Rs. 2,000, each.

Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.