Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. D-1001 of 1982, decided on 16th October, 1984.

---S.2(2)--West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1962), Preaarsisis Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Evacuee property--Transfer finalised--No proceeding pending against such transfer on 1-7-1974- Question of title of transferee and genuineness of such transfer--Powers of notified officers--Transfer of evacuee property having been finalised in favour of transferee before 1-7-1974 (Repeal of Act, 1958)--Na proceedings pending against such transfer at time of repeal of Act, 1958--Notified officers, held, had no power to touch upon question of title of transferee nor to enquire about genuineness of such transfer in favour of transferee--In case such notified officer passed any order under West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, both parties have right to have recourse to law to question legality of such order.

S. Nasiruddin for Petitioners.

Usman Ghani Rashid for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 16th October, 1984.

---(1) The petitioners through this petition have impugned the notices issued by respondent No.3 upon filing of the applications by respondent Nos.4 and 5. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the suit land as per averment of the petition was transferred to respondent No.6 under Parchi Khatooni dated 2-9-,1959. After that a clearance certificate dated 26-11-1972 was issued. It is the case of the petitioners that they had purchased the above land bonafidely from respondent No.6 under a sale deed dated 22-8-1978 for a sum of Rs.1,10, 300 and that their names were mutated on the basis of the above sale-deed on 22-8-1979 and the mutation was effected on 24-8-1981. On the other hand respondents Nos.4 and 5 also claimed to be the transferees of the suit land try virtue of Parchi Khatooni dated 17-3-1964. It seems that above respondent No.6 had filed an application on 16th March, 1973 before the Deputy Commissioner and A.S.C. Land, Sanghar for the removal of respondents Nos.4 and 5. It is the case of the petitioners that the above application was allowed by the Deputy Commissioner & A.S.C. Land by his order dated 10-6-1973 and he directed that the names of the above two respondents be removed. It is the case of the petitioners that the names of said respondents Nos.4 and 5 were removed on the basis of the above order. However, it is the case of respondents Nos.4 and 5 that it was not so, though no counter affidavit has been filed by them before us. Be that as it may, it seems that respondents Nos. 4 and 5 filed an application on 17-10-1982 before respondent No.3 under the following caption: -

"Subject Cancellation of Allotment/mutation standing in the name of Claimants Mst. Hakeeman W/o Sikandar Khan and purchasers Umed Ali Malokan and others in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 491/2, 3 and others area (24.38) of Deh Belharo, Taluka Tando Adam."

It further seems that in pursuance of the above application, the impugned notices were issued by respondent No. 3. Being aggrieved by the above notices, the petitioners have filed the present petition.

2. Mr. Syed Nasiruddin, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since no proceedings were pending on 1-7-1974, in terms of section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property & Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), no enquiry can be held and no order can be passed as to the genuineness of the transfer in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. He has also urged that the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 10-6-1973 in favour of Mst. Hakeeman had acquired the finality as no other proceedings were filed against the above order. On the other hand Mr. Usman Chani Rashid Advocate for the private respondents Nos.4 and 5 has submitted that there cannot be any cavil to the proposition that respondent No.3, or any other official respondent has no power to go into the question of genuineness of the claim of the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest or as a matter of fact into the genuineness of the claim of respondents Nos. 4 and 5 but respondent No.3, under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 for the purpose of maintaining the revenue records can hold enquiry.

3. In our view it will suffice to clarify that the official respondents will not touch upon the question of title of the petitioners' predecessor in title Mst. Hakeeman, respondent No.6, or on the question of genuineness or her claim or the transfer in her favour nor he will touch upon the above question in respect of respondents Nos. 4 and 5. In case respondent No.3, may pass any order under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act both the parties have the right to have recourse to law to question the legality of such order. The petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

H. B. T. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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