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. 293 of 1979, decided on 13th April, 1983.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 19‑3‑1979 of the Lahore High Court in W. P. No.1376/R of 1977).
‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Settlement Scheme (Revised) No. VIII‑Purchase of shop in open auction by respondent and P. T. D. issued to him Tenant executing rent deed in favour of ‑auction‑purchaser and after 10 years filing form under Revised Settlement Scheme No. VIII on allegation that number of shop in his possession was different Settlement authorities accepting plea of tenant and transferring shop to tenant‑Order of Settlement Authorities declared by High Court to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑Held, order of High Court eminently just, proper requiring no interference- Petition dismissed.
A. R. Shaukat, Senior. Advocate Supreme Court and M. Aslam, Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioner.
Shahzad Jahangir, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.
Date of hearing : 13th April, 1983.
‑The Settlement Authority had put on auction an evacuee Shop No. B‑IX‑6‑S‑21 situated in Ghala Mandi, Jhelum, in occupation of one Niaz Ali, which was purchased by respondent No. 1 herein on 30‑7‑1960. He was issued a P. T. O. on 16‑2‑1961 and the P. T. D. on 31‑3‑1964. After Niaz Ali left the shop, the respondent No. 1 herein rented out the shop in favour of the petitioner herein, who executed a rent deed on 15‑12‑1965. After about 10 years, he filed a form under the Revised Settlement Scheme No. VIII on the allegation that the number of the shop in his possession was Shop No. B‑IX‑5‑S‑2, and this plea was accepted and he was transferred the shop on 19‑2‑1974. The respondent challenged this order, but despite running up and down, the Settlement Authority maintained their order of transfer in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1, therefore, moved the High Court by a writ petition.
The learned Judge in the High Court after fully examining all ‑the facts accepted the said writ petition observing :‑
"In law and in fairness, the petitioner having purchased the shop in public auction, and having rented out the same to the respondent No. 1, who executed a rent deed dated. 15‑12‑1965, the latter could lay no claim to the shop in question which he had obtained on rent from the petitioner. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner has created confusion with reference to numbers without realising, in spite of his attention having been drawn to the fact, that the shop in possession of the respondent No. 1 had been obtained by the latter on rent from the petitioner who had been issued permanent transfer deed. In this view of the matter, the orders of the Settlement Authorities culminating in the order of Deputy Settlement Commis sioner dated 9‑8‑1976 were declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect."
This petition has been filed to challenge the above order of the High Court.
It is quite obvious that the High Court's order is eminently just, proper and requires absolutely no interference. This petition must, therefore, fail and is dismissed hereby.
M. Z. M. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer