Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. S. 54 of 1978, decided on 21st November, 1983.

---Art. 1 99‑Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 54‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10‑Constitutional petition‑Petitioner claiming to have purchased property in question through unregistered sale from transferee and stating that Settlement Department on application of respondent issued a notice for cancellation of P. T. O. and P. T. D. in respect of such property‑‑Neither petitioners nor transferee or his heirs appearing to have any interest in property about which petitioners claiming that notice was given‑Copy of notice also not produced‑Petitioners, held, suppressing relevant facts and filing constitutional petition with mala fide intention, not entitled to any relief.

Muhammad Ali Sheikh for Petitioners.

Ramchand M. Rangwani for Respondent No. 2.

Date of hearing : 21st November, 1983.

Petitioners Muhammad Yaqub and Muhammad Ramzan have filed this Constitutional Petition against the notice, dated 7‑4‑1978 purported to have been issued by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Nawabshah to the legal heirs of Muhammad Nazir (respondents Nos. 3 to 8 in this petition). Respondent No. l in this petition is Deputy Settlement Commissioner and respondent No. 2 is Abdul Khaliq and he is represented by Mr. Ramchand M. Rangwani. The 2 petitioners claimed to have purchased the property Custodian No. 11‑C‑375 in Moballah Memon Para, Shahadpur, District Sanghar through an unregistered agreement of sale, dated 24‑10‑1975. According to the petitioners, the property in question corresponds to City Survey No. 33/34 and the same had been purchased by deceased Muhammad Nazir through an auction by the Settlement Department, held on 22‑10‑[966, after which permanent transfer deed was issued in favour of Muhammad Nazir. In the impugned notice, dated 7‑4‑1978 addressed to the legal heirs of Muhammad Nazir it is mentioned that one Abdul Khaliq son of Allauddin (respondent No. 2 herein) has submitted an application for cancellation of P. T. O. and P. T. D., dated 22‑f0‑1966 in respect of House No.,R‑C‑375 situated in Mohallah Memon Para, Shahdadpur which had been transferred in their name and that the application will be taken up for hearing on 23‑4‑1978. The petitioners claiming to be the purchasers of the property in question from the legal heirs of Muhammad Nazir have challenged this notice on the ground that the Settlement Laws were repealed with effect from 1‑7‑1974 and as such the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had no authority or jurisdiction to initiate fresh proceedings cancellation of the transfer documents of the house in question.

2. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 and on behalf of the official respondent. Mr. Ramchand M. Rangwani has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and he has submitted that property bearing city Survey No. 33/34 belongs to respondent No. 2 and petitioners being in possession of the said property, respondent No. 2 filed ejectment proceedings against the petitioners for their ejectment after giving the petitioners notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. According to the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, his client has not moved any application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner or any other authority for cancellation of P. T. O. and P. T. D. of Muhammad Nazir in respect of House No. II‑C‑375 and that the proceedings have been taken at the instance of the petitioners themselves so as to delay the ejectment proceedings and the ejectment proceedings were in fact stayed pursuant to the status quo order passed in this petition on 22‑5‑1978. Respondent No. 2 has filed copies of the P. T. D. issued in his favour which is dated 8‑5‑1969 and it shows that House No. II‑C‑371 had been transferred to him. Respondent No. 2 has also filed copy of the transfer order, dated 22‑7‑1975 in favour of deceased Muhammad Nazir. It shows that House No. II‑C‑.375/376; 377 has been transferred to him by the. Settlement Department and corresponding city survey numbers are given as X/39, A/40 and portion of City Survey No. A/37. No rejoinder was filed to the counter‑affidavit of respondent No. 2 alongwith which copy of the transfer order in favour of Muhammad Nazir was filed. From the documents on record, therefore, the position that emerges is that City Survey No. 33/34 do not correspond to the Custodian number mentioned in the transfer order in favour of Muhammad Nazir and the P. T. D., dated 8‑5‑1969 issued in favour of respondent No. 2 shows that the city survey number corresponding to Custodian No. II‑C‑371, transferred to respondent No. 2, is Nos. A/33 and 34. Further, copy of the agreement of sale, dated 24‑10‑1975 relied upon by the petitioners whereby the property was agreed to be sold by the legal heirs of Muhammad Nazir only gives Custodian No. II‑C‑375 and does not give the corresponding city survey number. 1 asked Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh, learned counsel for the petitioners, whether he could produce or point out any document whereby it could be shown that City Survey Nos. A‑33 and 34 correspond to Custodian No. II‑C‑375. Learned counsel could not point out any such document and very frankly stated that the only material on which he relies is the averments in the memo. of petition.

3. From the documents on record it is, therefore, apparent that City Survey No. 33/34 correspond to Custodian No. II‑C‑371 which property had been transferred to respondent No. 2 and that neither the petitioners nor Muhammad Nazir nor his heirs have any interest in property bearing Custodian No. II-C‑371 corresponding to City Survey No. 3"3/34. Further, respondent No. 2 himself states that he had not moved any application for cancellation of P. T. O. and P. T. D. in respect of house bearing Custodian No. II‑C‑375 as he had not been transferred that house but he had been transferred house bearing Custodian No. II‑C‑371. Only a copy of the alleged notice, dated 7‑4‑1978 had been tiled in this petition. When asked I, learned counsel for the petitioners could not produce the original notice‑B dated 7‑4‑1978 purported to have been issued by respondent No. 2. It is apparent that relevant facts were suppressed by the petitioners in this Cons titutional Petition which was filed with mala fide intention.

4. The petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this Constitutional Petition. C. P. No. S‑54 of 1978 is dismissed with costs to respondent. No. 2. status quo order passed in this case stands recalled.

M. Y. H. 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.