Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 577 and 578 of 1978, decided on 3rd October, 1983.

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 15‑9‑1978 passed in W. P. No. 67‑R of 1978 and W. P. No. 68‑R of 1978).

Arts. 185(3) & 199‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabi litation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10 & Sched.‑‑Transfer of evacuee property by auction‑Writ petition against such auction dismissed by High Court on grounds (i) that petitioner had failed to prove filing of N. C. H. form for said property ; (ii) that petitioner was guilty of gross negligence and indolence in not agitating matter for 16 years and (iii) that after issuance of P. T. D Settlement Department had become functus officio‑No defect found in impugned order of High Court Leave to appeal refused.

Allah Wasaya Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Shahzad Jehangir, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 3rd October, 1983.

This order shall dispose of two petitions namely C. P. S. L. A. No. 577/78 and C. P. S. L. A. No. 578/78 as both of them are based on the same facts and were disposed of by the same judgment of the High Court.

2. The facts briefly are that the petitioners were in possession of one house each in Noorpur Thal, District Sargodha and filed their N. C. H. forms for their transfer on 13.5‑1960. The houses in question were, however, auctioned away on‑13‑3‑1961 in favour of one Nazar Muhammad predecessor- in‑interest of respondents (3 to 8). The auction‑purchaser paid the price in 1968 and was issued the P. T. D. on 22‑8‑1978. Sixteen years after the aforementioned auction the petitioner applied to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner saying that they had filed their N. C. H. forms but the transfer price bad not been demanded from them, nor bad any transfer order been issued in their favour. They urged this point before the various Settlement officials had failed. They finally challenged the auction in question through Writ Petitions Nos. 67‑R‑78 and 68‑R‑78, respectively. The High Court, however dismissed the same on the grounds firstly, that when asked to produce the receipts showing that they had filed the N. C. H. forms, produced some documents which bore no dates and had not been signed by‑any officer of the Settlement Department secondly that the petitioners had failed to agitate the matter for 16 long years and were as such, guilty of gross negligence and indolence and, thirdly that after issuance of the P. T. D. the Settlement Department had become functus officio.

3. After having heard the petitioner's counsel at length and considered the matter we find no defect in the impugned judgment. The petitioner are, therefore, dismissed as having no merit.

S. Q. Petitions 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.