Find a Lawyer

‑Ss. Ss. 10 & 20‑Allotment‑‑Deputy Settlement Commissioner trans (erring property without realising that same stool already trans ferred for last ten years‑Orders of Settlement Commissioner passed in revision setting aside order of transfer, hell, proper.

‑S. 20‑Suo motu., revisional jurisdiction ‑Property put to auction o‑‑n assumption that a person cannot be transferred two properties ‑Petitioners transferred a house and shop permissible under law‑‑ 'Held, depriving a displaced person in possession, for disposal of property through auction was clearly uncalled for illegal and without lawful authority.

‑‑ S. 20‑‑‑Suo motu revisional Jurisdiction‑Portion of property transferred to petitioners auctioned without notice‑Auction not confirmed on petitioner's representation‑Depriving petitioners of such portion by invocation of sun motu revisional jurisdiction, held, clearly illegal and totally without justification, transfer in favour of petitioners having become final.‑[Revision (civil)].

Anwar Ahmad Khan Sharwani for Petitioner.

Muhammad Ilyas Khan for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 27th October, 1981.

This order will dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 287/'R‑76 and 451/ ]R‑75 as these are connected matters.

2. Shado Mirza, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners in the first petition, was transferred on his C.S. Form property No. S. 84‑R‑60. a shop with the Choubara thereon, Main Bazar, Anarkali Lahore by the D:‑ duty Settlement Commissioner on 1st December, 1959. The occupant of the Choubara was Muhammad Bakhsh a local After the transfer Muhammad Bukhsh, predecessor‑in‑interest of Muhammad Jan, etc. executed a rent deed in favour of Shado Mirza acknowledging the latter's ownership on 22nd July, 1960. Many years later on 27th March, 1962, Muhammad Bakhsh filed an application asking for transfer of the Choubara in his possession which was allowed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 28th October, 1969 without realising that the property stood transferred in favour of Shado Mirza since 10 years earlier and without notice to him vile order dated 1st December, 1959, Shado Mirza naturally filed an app eal against the order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 28th October, 1969 which was accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 12th October, 1971. Muhammad Bakhsh filed a revision petition which has been dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 12th February, 1976. However, in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction, the Settlement Commissioner has taken away the entire property from Shado Mirza. This is challenged by Shade Mirza's heirs as well as by Muhammad Bakhsh's heirs in the above‑mentioned two titled petitions respectively.

3. Muhammad Bakhsh's heirs Muhammad Jan, etc. Writ Petition bearing No. 451,'11‑76 is liable to be dismissed for the simple reason that the property was transferred to Shado Mirza by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on tst December, 1959. Their predecessor‑in‑interest Muhammad Bakhsh acknowledged the ownership of Shado Mirza by ex ecuting a rent deed on 22nd July, 1960. After nearly a decade he had no right to ask the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to transfer him the portion of the property and the Settlement Commissioner was clearly in error to have transferred the same to him without realising that the pro perty stood transferred for the last 10 years. Shado Mirza's appeal was rightly accepted by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 121 October, 1971 and property allowed to remain transferred, to Shado Mirza, Muhammad Bakhsh's revision petition had no legs to stand upon and consequently, the rejection of his revision petition by the Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 12th February, 1976 was perfectly valid. Consequently, the Writ Petition No. 451/11‑76 filed by his heirs Muhammad Jar. etc. is dismissed but, in the circumstances, tire parties are left to bear their own costs.

4. As regards the right of Shado Mirza's heirs to retain the shop transferred to them on 1st December, 1959 which has been taken away froth them too and ordered to be auctioned under the impugned order dated, 12th February, 1976 in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction, it need only be said that the order proceeds on the assumption that a person cannot be transferred two properties. But that is only when the pro parties are of the same categories, either houses or shops. Transfer of a shop and a house is perfectly permissible. The property in question being a shop with Chaubara situated in commercial area, was a shop under the law and it was rightly transferred to Shado Mirza as a shop. He could not be deprived thereof because he had been transferred a house. A claimant displaced person transferred a property is entitled to remain in peace at least after more than fifteen years. The order of transfer of shop in his favour had become final and could not be set at naught with out regard to time factor of 15 years. Citizens are not to live at the mercy of the authority of public servants till infinity. Therefore, deprivation of transfer of a claimant displaced person in possession for disposal of the property through auction was clearly uncalled for, illegal and without lawful authority.

5. By the same order, the Settlement Commissioner besides depriving Shado Mirza of the transfer of the shop, has also taken away a portion of the residential portion transferred to him by the appellate order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 17th May, 1960. The latter order was set aside on the revision of one Nazir Ahmad by the Settlement commissioner on 28th September, 1960 but this order was set aside on Shado Mirza's L.P.A. No. 41 of 1962 decided on 7th February, 1966 when the matter was remitted for fresh decision. When it was so taken up, the then revision petitioner Nazir Ahmad walked out and allowed the revi sion petition to be dismissed for non‑prosecution. The revision petition .having been dismissed for non prosecution, the appellate order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner dated 17th May, 1960 held the field. The portion in question was in possession of post office but it never asked for its transfer. It was part of the residential portion transferred to the petitioners by the Additional Settlement Commissioner vide the appellate order dated 17th May, 1960. Without notice to the transferee Shado Mirza, it was auctioned in favour of Zahoor Ahmad but on the represen tation of the former, the auction was not confirmed and rightly so. The auction was illegal for having beets held in consequence of the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 28th September, 1960 which itself had been set aside by the High Court in L.P.A. No. 41 of 1962 decided on 7th February, 1966. The invocation of sou motu revisional jurisdiction in this behalf by the Settlement Commissioner in his order dated 12th February, 1976 is clearly illegal and totally without any justification whatsoever. Transfers made in favour of Shado Mirza in 1959 and 1960 had become final. The other contesting parties had loft the game and gone out of the arena. There was no justification to order or allow auction‑for fresh participants to come in to start combat and throw the parties into the whirlpool of unending litigation. Exercise of public power special tinder Settlement laws is to settle people and not to unsettle settled people. Sou motu revisional jurisdiction exercised by the Settlement Commissioner vide the impugned order dated 12th February, 1976 after 17/16 years of final orders is negation of all principles of justice and sub version of the statute under which he purported to exercise the jurisdiction. His said order is clearly without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is so declared. Shado Mirza's heirs are entitled to remain in peace and relief. Their petition is accepted with costs to be borne by the Settlement Department.

The aforementioned two petitions are thus disposed of.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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