Find a Lawyer

‑‑Par a. 22‑Rent enhancement of‑Validity of orders of Settlement . ,Authorities‑Procedure laid down in paragraph 22 of Settlement Scheme No. 1 not followed by Settlement Department ‑ Orders of determination and apportionment of rent of property set aside and .case remanded for re-fixation of rent.

A. W. Butt for Petitioner.

Chaudhry Nnzeer Ahmad for Respondents 1 to 4.

Mirza Abbas for Respondents 5 and 7.

Respondent No. 6 in person.

Date of hearing : 14th October, 1981.

The dispute in this case relates to the evaluation of transfer price of .property No. S‑52‑R‑81 which consists of three‑storeyed building and its ground floor consists of four shops and a residential portion. The peti tioner has been transferred shop No. 2 on the basis of his C. S. Form and accordingly Provisional Transfer Order No. 112756 dated 29th January, 1960 was also issued. This was followed by an Appendix X whereby the transfer price was evaluated at Rs. 12,960 (Antfexure B). The petitioner has paid the entire transfer price through installments and after clearance of the entire dues Permanent Transfer Deed in respect of the property, in question, was issued on 10th February, 1964. Consequent to the issuance of the Permanent Transfer Deed, Muhammad Ismail respondent filed an appeal against the order dated 29th October; 1963 of the Deputy Settle ment Commissioner, Lahore‑III regarding the distribution of rent of property, in question, (Annexure E/3). In consequence, the Additional Settlement Commissioner set aside the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and remanded the case for decision afresh after hearing the parties (Annexure E/2). On remand, the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner re-fixed the value by his order dated 24th July, 1965 (Annexure F). In consequence of the appellate order, the rent in respect of the shop of 1983] the petitioners was enhanced from Rs. 27 to Rs. 46. The petitioners and others again preferred appeal before the Additional Settlement Commis sioner. In consequence thereto, the Additional Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 29th June, 1966 reduced the rent to Rs. 41 instead of Rs. 46 (Annexure G). The petitioners challenged the validity of the aforesaid order by means of revision petition which was rejected as in competent in law by an order dated 26th November, 1966 of the Settle ment Commissioner. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the order dated 26th November, 1966 of respondent No. 1 by means of this writ petition on 30th May, 1972.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners has assailed the validity of the order of the Settlement Authorities for enhancing the rent of the shop, in dispute, from Rs. 30 to Rs. 41. on two‑fold grounds. Firstly, that after the issuance of the permanent transfer deed, the Settlement authorities have become functus officio and no appeal could have been filed against the determination of the rent. Secondly, that the rent of the shop, in dispute, prevailing in 1946 was Rs. 30 and, therefore, under para graph 22 of the Settlement Scheme No. 1, the Settlement Authorities were bound to assess the rent which was prevailing in 1946.

3. The learned counsel for the Settlement Department concedes that for the purposes of determining the rent of the property in question; the . Settlement Department was bound to follow the procedure laid down in para graph 22 of the Settlement Scheme No. 1 which has not been followed. This being so, I set aside all the orders of the Settlement Authorities regarding the determination and apportionment of the rent of the property, in dispute, and remand the case to the Settlement Commissioner (Urban), ‑Lahore with the direction that the rent be re-fixed afresh after issuing notices to the parties concerned and in accordance with paragraph 22 of the Settlement Scheme No. 1.

With these observations, the writ petition is accepted with no order as to costs.

M.Y.H. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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