Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 74 of 1980, decided on 21st December, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, dated 16‑10‑1979 in Civil Revision 1113 of 1979).

--- Art. 185(3)‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss. 22 & 25‑Allegation that fraud and mis representation committed by respondents in securing transfer of property‑‑Leave to appeal granted on ground that Courts below had fallen into error of law by holding that suit filed by petitioner was barred by Ss. 22 & 25 of Act, 1958, and that civil Court was com petent in law and it should have decided issue after recording evidence of parties.

‑‑ Ss. 10, 22 & 25‑Allegation of fraud and misrepresentation‑Con current finding of Courts below that appellant was unable to sub stantiate ingredients of misrepresentation or fraud‑Civil Court had no jurisdiction to question validity of order passed by Settlement Authorities in circumstances.‑[Jurisdiction].

Chief Settlement Commissioner v. Muhammad Fazil Khan and others PLD1975SC331ref.

----Ss. 10, 22 & 25 ‑ Allegation of fraud and misrepresentation Appellants neither allottees nor considered to be entitled to transfer of property‑Held, appellant had no locus standi to file suit alleging fraud and misrepresentation or challenge transfer of property to respon dents.‑[Locus standi].

Riaz Ahmad Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Mujeebur Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.

Respondent No. 5 : Ex parte.

Date of hearing: 21st December, 1983.

Leave was granted in this case vide order of this Court, dated 13‑5‑80 on the ground that the Courts below have fallen into error of law by holding that the suit filed by the appellants was barred by sections 22 and 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilita tion) Act, 1958; and that the civil Court was competent in law and it should have decided the issue after recording the evidence of the parties. It was alleged that fraud and misrepresentation was committed by the respondents in securing the transfer of the plot in dispute. Thus, the civil Court was not barred by law to go into the question raised by the petitioner/appellants being rival applicants for the transfer of the same plot and had a locus standi. In the Leave Granting Order, however, it has been mentioned that the appellants/petitioners who claim to be legal heirs of Mst. Zar Jan. In fact they claim to be in possession of the plot in dispute, independent of any relation with Mst. Zar Jan, allottee from whom the respondents had derived the title and had paid the price to the Settlement Authorities.

2. It is admitted by both sides that Mst. Zar Jan widow was provisionally transferred the property in dispute but before she could pay its price, she died. Thereupon respondents Nos. 1 to 4 were impleaded as her legal re presentatives vide order, dated 28‑3‑1974 by the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner. It seems that they paid the price for the disputed property 'and, therefore on 8‑4‑1974 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner permanently transferred the property in question in their names. On this the appellants/ petitioners Jamal Din and another, who were rival claimants of the disputed property qua Mst. Zar Jan deceased, filed a suit on 3‑6‑1975 for declaration that respondent No. 1 is not daughter‑in‑law and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 are not grandsons and daughter, respectively of Ayub; that they being widow, sons and daughter, respectively of Muzaffar son of Dullah are not the successors‑in‑interest of deceased Mst. Zar Jan widow of Ayub; that the transfer of Plot No. 5313‑14‑15/223 Ward AA, Rawalpindi City secured in their favour by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 from the Settlement Department, Rawalpindi by fraud and misrepresentation, is without lawful authority, void and does not affect the rights of the petitioners‑in‑possession (present appel lants) as applicants for the transfer of the same plot before the Settlement Authorities; and for a consequential relief for restraining implementation of the said transfer order dated 8‑4‑1974. The suit was dismissed by‑the learned trial Court. Appeal also failed and the revision filed in the High Court was also dismissed vide the impugned judgment.

3. Contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that since the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act where under the property in question had been transferred, had been repealed, they could not question that order in any other forum. He also submitted that in view of the plea of fraud raised by the appellants/petitioners, the civil Court had the jurisdiction to look into the grievance. The argument is not sustainable as the order transferring the property in dispute in favour of the respondents was made on 8‑4‑1974 while the aforesaid Act was repealed on 30‑9‑1974 by means of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Ordinance, 1974. Thus the appellants had about five months to challenge the order of the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner before the higher authorities of the Settlement Department but the appellants/petitioners did not do so. Therefore, they cannot now avail of the benefits of the repealing Ordinance.

4. The argument that the appellants had no knowledge of the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner is also not convincing because this was neither made a ground in the plaint, filed by the appellants/petitioners, nor was it raised at any later stage. Instead, in the plaint, it was stated that the cause of action accrued to the petitioners on 8‑4‑1974. This is precisely the date on which the impugned order of transfer was made in favour of the respondents.

5. As far as the plea of fraud is concerned, it is the concurrent finding of the Courts below that the petitioners have not been able to substantiate the ingredients of misrepresentation or fraud. According to sections 22 and 25 of the aforesaid Act the civil Courts had no jurisdiction to question the validity of the order passed by the Settlement Authorities. This view is supported by Chief Settlement Commissioner v: M. Fazil Khan and others (PLD 1975 S C 331).

It is also clear on the record that the appellants were neither the allottees nor were they considered to be entitled to the transfer of the plot in dispute, therefore, they had no locus stands to file the suit or challenge the transfer of the plot in dispute in the names of the respondents. Thus, we find that this appeal is without any merit, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed, both on merit as well as being barred by time by two days. No order as to costs.

M. Z. M. Appeal 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.