Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 704 of 1979, decided on 6th August, 1983.

(From the judgment dated 26‑6‑1979 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 382/R of 1972).

‑‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10‑Filing of L. S. Form by petitioner Rejection of such Form for reason that shop was not "available" Property resumed for non‑payment Petitioner applying for transfer of such property, transfer order issued in his favour and notice for payment of balance price also issued to petitioner‑Property in the meantime again auctioned in favour of same transferee‑Settlement Commissioner holding that rejection of petitioner's earlier Form became final‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider question whether Settlement Commissioner had erred in treating rejection of earlier Form to be a hurdle in way of second Form filed by petitioner and that High Court ought to have interfered with same.

Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 6th August, 1983.

The petitioner bad filed L. S. Form on 14‑10‑1966 for transfer of shop No. 6/49‑A, Saddar Bazar, Mandi Bahauddin, District Gujrat under Scheme No. VIII but the Form was rejected on 14‑4‑1967 for the reason that the shop was not available as it had already been auctioned on 29‑8‑1960. The petitioner's revision failed on 25‑11‑1967. The shop was, however, resumed on 1‑10‑1969 for non‑payment of its price and the petitioner again applied for its transfer on 2‑10‑1969 and it is his case that a Transfer Order was issued in his favour on 1‑12‑1969 and he was also issued a notice on 31‑3‑1970 for payment of the balance price. He, however, came to know that the shop had, in the meantime, again been auctioned in favour of Mahmood‑ul‑Hassain, respondent No: 1 on 27‑8‑1970. He agitated the matter but his appeal, revision and writ petition having been dismissed, he has filed this petition for grant of leave to appeal.

2. The learned Judge of the High Court was not satisfied that the petitioner had filed the second L. S. Form or that the property had been transferred in his favour on 1‑12‑1969. This was an inference drawn from the fad that the petitioner had not produced the order, dated 1-12‑1969 before the appellate authority. It, however, appears that the learned Settlement Commissioner had himself not doubted the existence of the order dated 1‑12‑1969, but had held the same to be illegal for the reason that the rejection of his earlier Form had become final.

3. It is contended that the learned Settlement Commissioner had erred in treating the rejection of the earlier Form to be a hurdle in the way of the second Form filed by the petitioner and that the High Court ought to have interfered with the same. The point requires consideration. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. Security shall be furnished in the sum of Rs. 2,500. It is further directed that the appeal be fixed for hearing before the first available Bench in October, 1983.

M. Z. M. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.