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.
Writ Petition No.323/R of 1983, decided on 15th February, 1984.
---S.10--Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art.9--Cancellation of allotment order--Petitioner admittedly a tenant under landlord- Original transfer order produced by petitioner in Court appearing to be spurious document--Petitioner/tenant, held, by no conceivable principle could either compete with his landlord or could be deemed to be in possession of property--Allotment/Transfer order therefore, was rightly cancelled in circumstances.
---Art.9--Suppression of material fact--Effect--Material fact suppressed to suit--Position, held, disentitles petitioner from any discretionary relief in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction--Writ Petition dismissed.
Ch. Muhammad Tufail for Petitioner.
Respondent No. 1 in person.
Qazi Khurshid Alam for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5.
Date of hearing: 15th February, 1984.
This writ petition is directed against the order of Tehsildar Bhakkar dated 18-12-1982 whereby he has out of two transfer orders produced before him, held one of them to be lawful and genuine and cancelled the other.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the premises in dispute located in village Darya Khan Dagar as per the survey register for the year 1951 as well as 1966 were allotted to Umar Din, the predecessor-in- interest of respondents 2 to 5. The said Umar Din died in the year 1968 as is being stated at the Bar and is not being controverted from the other side. It is admitted by, the petitioner who is present with his learned counsel that he was a tenant of Umar Din from the year 1965 onwards. He also admits that he executed two rent notes to that effect.
3. The name of Umar Din appears in the survey register of 1969 at S.No.876. The register has been seen. There is no interpolation or erasion and the handwriting and ink are consistent with rest of the entries. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to dispute the authenticity of transfer order issued in favour of respondents 2 to 5.
4. I have heard both the sides.
5. In view of the fact that this is established that the allottee of the property in dispute was Umer Din predecessor-in-interest of respondents 2 to 5 and the petitioner was admittedly a tenant under him, therefore, by no conceivable principle, he can either compete with his landlords or could be deemed to be in possession of the property in dispute in his own right. In such a situation, there arose no question of any transfer being made in his favour by the Settlement or any other authority. Moreover, the original transfer order which has been produced by the petitioner in Court also appears to be spurious documents. It mentions an open plot and whereas there are entries above the prescribed columns with thin pen and different ink trying to show it to be a transfer order in respect of the property in dispute. The Tehsildar on such a spurious document being shown to him as against a genuine transfer order of respondents 2 to 5 was wholly right in ignoring it to be a scrap of paper. It seems clear, therefore, that the petitioner who was a tenant of the original allottee Umar Din after his death manoeuvred to have this document prepared in order to deprive the lawful persons of their due right.
6. Apart from above, it was also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for respondents during the hearing that the petitioner had already filed a civil suit on 9-2-1983 for declaration to be declared as owner in possession of the disputed property and on the same cause of action. In this case, the stay order was refused to him by the trial Court as well as by the learned Additional District Judge. This material aspect of the case has been completely suppressed by the petitioner in writ petition. The suppression of this material fact also disentitles the petitioner from any discretionary relief in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.
7. The net result is that this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with costs and it is declared that the so-called transfer order obtained by the petitioners is of no effect on the rights of the original allottees and transferees, namely, respondents 2 to 5.
H . B . T . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer