Find a Lawyer

Rehabilitation Revision Petition No. 4 of 1958, decided on 21st August 1958.

Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958)

, S. 2 (6) proviso‑Applicability of.

Saeed Akhtar for Petitioner.

Khakan Babar for Molvi Mazhar Ali Azhar, for Respondent (Mohd. Amin)

Fazalur Rehman, for Respondent (Abdul Wahab).

Muhammad Daud, R. O. Legal for the R. A.

Shop No. 19, Railway Bazar, Bahawalnagar, was allotted to one Noor Muhammad who was later on joined by Abdul Wahab, respondent No. 3, as a co‑allottee. Noor Muhammad, the original allottee, transferred his share of the allotment to Soofi Karam Elahi petitioner. This transfer appears to have been accepted by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner in the exercise of an assumed power of review on 7‑2‑1955. Noor Muhammad appealed and asked for the restoration of his, share of the allotment to him. Muhammad Amin, respondent No. 2, made an application that he was a more deserving person than Abdul Wahab, respondent No. 3, and the latter's share should be allotted to him. The Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner dismissed the appeal of Noor Muhammad and gave Muhammad Amin the share of Soofi Karam Elahi who had obtained the transfer from Noor Muhammad in consideration of what is popularly known as pugree. The shop was thus allotted to Muhammad Amin and Abdul Wahab, respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Soofi Karam Elahi applied for revision of this order to the Rehabilitation Commissioner and so did Muhammad Amin because he wanted the whole shop. The revision petitions were dismissed on 31‑5‑1957, Soofi Karam Elahi was ejected from the shop in December, 1957, and Muhammad Amin and Abdul Wahab were put in possession.

Karam Elahi has now made an application praying that the order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner dated 7‑2‑1955, accepting the transfer in his favour should be restored and the orders of the Additional Rehabilita tion Commissioner and the Rehabilitation Commissioner should be set aside.

I have gone through the orders of the Additional Rehabilitati Com missioner, dated 30‑1‑1956, and the Rehabilitation Commissioner, dated 31‑5‑1957. The Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner has found that Soofi Karam Elahi was not entitled to the allotment of this shop and the order of the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner was without jurisdiction. He has also found that Soofi Karam Elahi had been going from one place to another obtaining allotments as a Muhajir and was no longer entitled to any rehabilitation. The learned Rehabilitation Commissioner has held on the evidence of. Noor Muhammad himself that he had transferred his share of the allotment to Soofi Karam Elahi on payment of pugree, that Soofi Karam Elahi had secured half share of the shop by unauthorised means and that the allotment in his favour made by the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner was rightly set aside by the Additional Rehabilitation Com missioner in appeal. Soofi Karam Elahi now asks for the ejectment of Muhammad Amin, who has been put in possession of the shop in his place. He concedes that under Section 29, Displaced Persons Act, no order of ejectment passed against anyone in possession after 17‑2‑1958, can be given effect to. His contention is that he was ejected in December 1957 and according to section 2, subsection (6), Displaced Persons Act, XXVIII of 1958, possession, except for the purposes of section 30, which protects the occupants of houses and shops transferred under the Act, does not include possession obtained on or after the 17th day of February, 1958, but includes possession so obtained in pursuance or as a result of an order passed before that date by the Rehabilitation Commissioner or by the Custodian : provided that a claimant dispossessed of any property on or after the first day of July, 1957, shall be deemed to be in possession thereof. Muhammad Amin was put in possession before 17‑2‑1958, and as a result of an order passed before that date by the Rehabilitation Commissioner. The petitioner says that he is a claimant and relies upon the proviso to subsection (6) that a claimant dispossessed of any property on or after the first day of July, 1957, shall be deemed to be in possession thereof. The abovementioned proviso appears to be applicable to claimants for the purpose of the settlement of their claims and differs from section 29 which says that no order of ejectment passed on or after the 17th day of February, 1958, in respect of any house or shop shall be given effect to. This provision is applicable to all persons in possession, claimants and non‑claimants alike. But a non‑claimant shall be deemed to be in possession if dispossessed in pursuance of an order passed after the 17th day of February, 1958, whilst a claimant dispossessed even earlier than that but after the first day of July, 1957, shall be deemed to be in possession according to the proviso to section 2, subsection (6). Subsection (2) of section 29 says that no thing contained in subsection (1) shall apply to any person dispossessed in pursuance or as a result of an order passed before the 17th day of February, 1958, by the Rehabilitation Commissioner or by the Custodian unless he happens to be a claimant. In other words, a claimant dispossessed in pursuance of an order passed by the Rehabilitation Commissioner or the Custodian even before the 17th day of February, 1958, shall be deemed to be in possession unless he was dispossessed prior to the first day of July, 1957, the date fixed for the benefit of claimants in the proviso to section 2, subsection (6). It is however, unnecessary for me to decide this question in this case because Muhammad Amin was put in possession in accordance with law and on merits I am not at all disposed to interfere with the order of the Rehabilitation Commissioner. The allotment in favour of the petitioner was, in my opinion, rightly cancelled. The petition for revision is dismissed.

K. B. A. 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.