Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No.52 of 1982, decided on the 14th February, 1984.

(From the judgment dated 15‑11‑1981 of the Lahore. High Court passed in Writ Petition No.711‑R of 1975).

‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10 s Sched.‑‑Transfer of godown through auction‑‑Decision taken by Settlement Authorities on question of fact‑ Held, not ordinarily to be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court‑‑Case not found to be a fit one for grant of leave to appeal.

Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and A.R. Shaukat, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Khan M. Younas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 14th February, 1984.

The question involved in this petition is one of fact, that is, what is the extent of the "residential portion" transferred in favour of the petitioner in Property No. F/1132, situate in Mohalla Sareen, Azam Cloth Market, inside Delhi Gate, Lahore. It was a composite property consisting of two shops and a godown on the around‑floor and two rooms on the first‑floor on top of the shops and the godown. The shops were disposed of by auction and there is no dispute about them. The rest of the property, that is, the godown on the ground‑floor and the two rooms on the first‑floor, 'were in possession of one Muhammad Shari. The "residential portion" was put to auction on 19‑2‑1970 and was purchased by the petitioner in whose favour P. T. D. issued on 2‑4‑1970. Subsequently, the godown was put to auction on 25‑7‑1970 and was purchased by Muratib Ali (respondent No.4) and P.T.D. issued in his favour on 28‑8‑1970. He, thereafter, served a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) on Mubarik, the occupant of the godown. On coming to know of it, the petitioner claiming that the godown had formed part of the residential portion already auctioned in his favour and that Mubarik was his tenant, agitated the transfer of the godown in favour of Mubarik Ali, first, by filing Writ Petition No. 206/R of 1971 and when the same was dismissed for the reason that the matter involved factual inquiry, by, filing a revision petition but the same too was dismissed by the learned Settlement Commissioner for the reason that P.T.D. having already issued the Settlement authorities ceased to have jurisdiction and that the petitioner had not objected in time to the auction of the godown. The petitioner again invoked the constitutional jurisdiction by filing Writ Petition No.711/R of 1975. His contentions that in terms of order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 24‑6‑1960, the residential portion comprised the entire portion in possession of Muhammad Shafi and as such the godown was included in the auction held in his favour; that after issue of P.T.D. in his favour on 2‑4‑1970 the Settlement authorities had become functus officio and could not auction any portion of the property already covered by the P.T.D. and that the learned Settlement Commissioner had not applied his mind to the merits of the case, were repelled upon the view that neither the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 24‑6‑1960 nor the P . T . D. issued in favour of the petitioner gave a description of the "residential property" which was subject‑matter of the auction held in his favour, that the petitioner had failed to move the Settlement authorities in time for deletion of the godown from the auction list, that the question raised involved finding of fact and that the decision of the Settlement authorities on such question even if erroneous would not ipso facto render the decision as without jurisdiction. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed on 15‑11‑1981.

2. In addition to the grounds raised before the High Court, learned counsel also urged before us that the entire portion in possession of Muhammad Shaft had been assessed, as per extract from the "Register of Assessment and Recovery of Rent of Buildings" maintained by the Department, at Rs. 12.00 p.m. and as such the fixation of the reserve price on evaluation basis at Rs.5,760 for the purpose of the auction, fully indicated that the godown was part of the property auctioned in his favour. Be that as it may, neither the auction list nor the transfer documents show clearly that the godown had been included in the auction. The question being primarily of fact, the decision taken by the Settlement authorities is not ordinarily to be interfered within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. We, therefore, do not find it to be a fit case for grant of leave. The petition is dismissed.

S. Q. 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.