Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition No. 242 of 1977, decided on 2nd April, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 23‑2‑1977 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 248/R of 1977).
----Art. 185‑Settlement Scheme No. VIII‑Transferee's failure to deposit full amount of price of open plot in time fixed with his con sent‑Plot put to auction‑High Court in constitutional jurisdiction holding that petitioner's conduct in failure to deposit amount in time disentitles him to any relief‑Contention that since matter has been decided mainly on equitable grounds High Court should have considered circumstances that petitioner was in physical possession since decades; , had raised Pacca construction over plot and. plot if auctioned said construction will go free to auction‑purchaser; and that petitioner has since deposited full price‑Supreme Court converted petition into appeal .with liberty to parties to add further documents.
A. R. Shaukat Senior Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent
Date of hearing : 2nd April, 1483.
The petitioner, who was the transferee of an open plot, failed to deposit the full amount of its price within the period of time specified in the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner and which period has been fixed with his consent. The plot was, thereupon, put to auction.
The petitioner contended that the plot could not have been put to auction without issuance of certain further notices specified in the Settlement Scheme No. VIII but this contention was rejected by the High Court largely on the ground that in view of the conduct of the petitioner in failing to fulfill his obligations to pay the price within the period fixed with his consent his conduct disentitled him to any relief under the discretionary writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Before us it is contended that since the matter has been decided mainly on equitable considerations the learned Judge in the High Court should also have taken into consideration the circumstance that the petitioner was a displaced person, he was in the physical possession of the plot since decades that he has raised a pacca contraction over the plot which if the orders of the Settlement authorities were not interfered with, would also go to the auction purchaser free of cost and that since then he had also paid the full price (at a point of time after his revision had been accepted by the Settlement Commissioner by an ex parte order, which was ultimately recalled).
As for the legal aspect, the learned counsel relied upon Mst. Zarina Rauf Butt etc. v. Malik Aziz Ahmad etc. (P L D 1982 S C 272) in support of his submission that the plot could not have been auctioned in the circumstances of the present case.
We would convert this petition into an appeal.
Security in the sum of Rs. 2,000 which should be deposited within ten days.
The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any, and fixed for hearing in the month of May, 1983.
M. Z. M. Petition allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer