Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1591 of 1980, decided on 23rd December, 1981.

(On appeal from the order of the High Court Lahore dated 30-10-1980 in Writ Petition 183-R/1972).

-- S. 20(3)-Permanent Transfer Deed once issued attains finality qua transferee-Chief Settlement Commissioner, held, justified in refusing to exercise his jurisdiction for cancellation thereof.

M. Aslam Awan, Advocate and M. A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

-This petition relates to the transfer of plot No. 5/90, situate in Fateh Abad, a suburb of Faisalabad City. The respondents are the sons of the petitioner: This plot was transferred to them through a Provisional Transfer Order dated 28th of June, 1961. Its appears that the first respondent conveyed his rights in the plot to the peti tioner by executing an agreement of association on 26th of April 1965, which was allegedly filed before the concerned settlement authority on 29th of April, 1965. Thereafter, the respondents entered into an agreement of association on 26th of April 1967, by which the first respondent conveyed his rights in the same plot to the second respondent and consequent thereto a P. T. D. was issued in his favour. The petitioner, thereupon, filed an application before the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 14th of July, 1967, purportedly under section 20 (3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabili tation) Act, 1958, seeking for the cancellation of the P. T. D. in favour, of the second respondent. By letter dated 19th of February, 1972, the Chief Settlement Commissioner informed him that no order on the execu tive side could be issued for the cancellation of the P. T. D. as it had gone out of the compensation pool. The petitioner, thereupon, challenged this order in the Lahore High Court through a Writ Petition which was dismissed on 30th of October, 1980.

One of the pleas, which goes to the root of the case, taken before the High Court, is that the agreement of association in his favour was approved; but the petitioner failed to establish that it was duly filed and approved by any settlement authority. This being the case, the question of fraud does not arise as the first respondent was free to enter into the second agreement of association for the transfer of his rights in favour of the second respondent; and as the P. T. D. had been issued it assumed finality qua the transfer of the plot in his favour. The Chief Settlement Commissioner was, therefore, justified in refusing to exercise his jurisdiction.

The petition has no substance and is 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.