Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 436 of 1982, decided on 4th May, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court dated 6‑3‑1982 in W. P. 458‑R of 1981).

‑‑Art. 185(3)‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10‑Order of Deputy Settlement Commis sioner rich in details of facts of case‑All documents on which petitioners have relied having been discussed by Deputy Settlement Commissioner in order and conclusion arrived at based on proper reasoning‑Such order, held, did not call for any interference‑Leave to appeal refused.

Muhammad Hussain Manir v. Sikandar P L D 1974 S C 139 ref.

Muhammad Arif, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Raja Abdur Razzaq, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.

Date of hearing : 4th May, 1983.

. ‑By C. P. L. A. No. 436 of 1982 and C. P. L. A. No. 13 of 1983 leave is sought to appeal against the judgments and orders dated 6‑3‑1982 and 8‑11‑1982 passed by the learned Lahore High Court in writ petition 458‑R of 1981 and 1. C. A. 83 of 1982 respec tively. This order will dispose of both the above‑mentioned Civil Petitions for leave to appeal.

2. Relevant facts for disposal of these two petitions are that property bearing No. P‑128 Ward No. 6 Bhawana Bazar, Faisalabad was transferred as a house to Mst. Rabia Bibi widow of Jewan Khan by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 30‑11‑1959 and P. T. O. was issued to her. The same property was, however, auctioned on 20‑I1‑1960 in favour of Nazir Ahmad, Petitioner No. 1 and his brother Bashir Ahmad. Mst. Rabia Bibi died and the heirs filed revision petition against the auction in favour of petitioner No. 1 and the Settlement Commissioner directed the Deputy Settlement Commissioner to hold fresh enquiry as to whether the property in question was a house or a shop vide order dated 12‑12‑1973. The peti tioner took the matter finally before the Supreme Court in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 208/1979 where it was held that the High Court had rightly refused to interfere with the order of the Settlement Commis sioner. It was further observed that the learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to. Address the Court on some points but it was thought not necessary to attend to the same because in case if it is found that the property in dispute was a house taken its transfer in favour of Mst. Rabia Bibi was valid which was made prior to its transfer in favour of the peti tioner ; and if it was found that the property was a shop then the petitioner would be entitled to claim the same. It was held so vide order dated 8‑6‑1980. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner, vide detailed order dated 15‑4‑1981, arrived at the conclusion that the property in dispute was a house and the heirs of Mst. Rabia Bibi were entitled to its possession. This order was challenged by the petitioner through a writ petition. The learned Judge of the High Court held "the first contention cannot be raised now in view of the judgment of the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan where it was held that if the property was found to be a house then its transfer to Mst. Rabia Bibi which was made much prior to the transfer in favour of the petitioners would hold the field".

3. As regards the second contention, the learned Judge held that all the documents produced by the petitioners were examined thoroughly by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who found them not to establish the fact that in the relevant period, the property in dispute was not a house, as a result of which the petition was dismissed vide High Court order dated 6‑3‑1982. The I.‑C. A. was also dismissed by the learned High Court Judges, vide order dated 2‑11‑1982 on the ground that the order of the learned Judge in Chamber dismissing the petition in limine and in view of the proviso to subsection (2) of section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 was not competent because in the proceedings out of which the writ petition arose, the original order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner, Faisalabad on 30‑11‑1959 transferring the property in dispute in favour of Mst. Rabia was appealable.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners now contended before us that the High Court is not precluded in law from interfering with the decision by the Settlement authorities about the nature of property ; that wrong decision by tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction called upon to determine the character of the property by taking evidence thereon within the ambit of this Court's dicta as laid down in P L D 1974 S C 139. He further contended that the order of this Court in C. P. L. A. 208 of 1979 dated 8‑6‑1980 has been misconstrued by the learned Judge because as per that finding of this Court the petitioners were precluded from contending that the disputed property was not transferred to Mst. Rabia Bibi, and that the evidence by the petitioners in support of the contention that the private respondents' predecessors‑in‑title (Mst. Rabia Bibi) as also respondent No. 2 were bound by their own conduct, firstly, in accepting the character of the disputed property as shop throughout, and, secondly, not denying the fact that Mst. Rabia Bibi's alleged L. H.‑form had been rejected by the Settlement Authority, and lastly, accepting the petitioners as auction pur chasers of the disputed property as a shop, could not be discarded while deciding the nature of the disputed property.

5. We have examined various orders relating to the. property in dispute and that the one passed by the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner on 15‑4‑1981 is rich in details of the facts of the case and does not call for any interference. All the documents on which the petitioners have relied, have been discussed in it and the conclusion arrived at is based on proper reasoning. Thus, we do not find it a fit case for interference with the impugned orders of the learned High Court. Both the above‑mentioned petitions are without merit and are, consequently dismissed.

M. Z. M. 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.