Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 737-R of 1977, heard on 20th March-, 1985.

---Art. 199--Settlement Scheme No. VI, para. 6--Transfer of property in favour of petitioner and issuance of P. T. D.--Subsequently transfer of property found to be the result of fraud and misrepresentation by Settlement Authority--Plea that Settlement Authorities had become functus officio after issuance of P.T.D., repelled--Impugned 'order was passed suo moto by Settlement Authority having been vested with such jurisdiction--Settlement Authority, held, did not commit any irregularity in exercising jurisdiction--Impugned order suffered from no error of law, constitutional remedy was refused in circumstances.

S.M. Wahab for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.

Sh. Anwar-ul-Haq for Respondent No. 5.

S.M. Hamid Ali for Respondent No. 6.

R. A . Zafar for Respondent No. 7.

Date of hearing: 20th March, 1985.

Ghulam Ali Butt and his son Imdad Ali residents of Landa Bazar, Lahore filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, praying that order of respondent No. .4 dated 17-6-1976 passed in this suo moto jurisdiction be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Both the petitioners are admittedly locals. Ghulam Ali Butt was residing in a room in Property No. SE-II-2-S-17, Landa Bazar, Lahore, which according to the petitioners is Katri/Ihata having a courtyard. This belonged to L. Gobind Ram. Gobind Ram died before partition. The property was partitioned between the heirs. Their portions were given separate numbers.

It is alleged by the petitioners that although the property referred to above was sub-divided into various units but after partition. Rehabilitation Authorities treated the same as one unit bearing No. SE-II-2-S-17. A number of persons was residing in different portions of this property.

Ghulam Ali claimed to be in possession of one room of this property as old tenant. He occupied another room adjoining the room already in possession after partition.

He further claimed to have constructed a room in a portion of courtyard. Petitioner No. 2 alongwith his father was residing in the aforesaid two rooms of property in question.

After partition, Ghulam Ali applied for transfer order Settlement Scheme No. VI. Settlement Department's case is different. They say-that plot measuring 4 Marlas and 198 Sq. Ft. was transferred to Ghulam Ali, on 12-6-1965, for a consideration of Rs.14,640. This amount was subsequently reduced by 10 . The plot was resumed on 30-10-1968 because of default in payment of the transfer price. Ghulam Ali felt aggrieved. He gave an application for deletion of the plot from the auction list.

Another plot measuring 2 Marlas and 78 Sq. Ft., which was also in possession of Ghulam Ali was put to auction. The Department claimed that the second plot measuring 2 Marlas and 78 Sq. Ft. was neither transferred to Ghulam Ali nor did he ever applied for that.

In the year 1970, his son lmdad Ali came into the picture. He filed L. H . Form for transfer of Property. No. SE-II-2-S-17 .

On 5-1-1971, the D.S.C. transferred two rooms measuring 231 Ft. x 70 Ft. against the L.'H. Form to lmdad Ali but did not mention the area of the passage. The D.S.C. further observed that the remaining area of open space shall be disposed of by open auction. However, he did not mention the area of the remaining plot.

Ghulam Ali's appeal for resumption of the transfer of plot was pending. He claimed a refund of Rs.13,176 from the transfer price on the ground that the property transferred to him was not a plot but a house. The refund voucher was prepared. The case was transferred to Accounts Section. The matter was to be examined and report to be submitted as to whether the property was transferred as a plot to Ghulam Ail or a house. to his son lmdad Ali.

The case was re-examined. The D.S.C. (Plots) went to the spot and made enquiry. He reported that Ghulam Ali was in possession of plot. His son, Imdad Ali was not in possession of any room in this property in his own capacity. The rooms transferred to Imdad Ali on L. H. Form were constructed on the transferred plot of Ghulam Ali. The D.S.C. found no other room except those constructed on the plot of his father.

The Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Plots) also noticed other things the important being that he was of the opinion that P.T.D. was obtained by lmdad Ali through fraud, misrepresentation and concealing the facts. The same required cancellation.

The D.S.C., therefore, referred the case to the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner requesting him thereby to take up the matter suo moto. This is how the impugned order was passed, which has been challenged in this petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the impugned order was without jurisdiction. P. T. D. having been issued, the Settlement Authorities had become functus officio.

It was further submitted that the matter had bees, decided up to the level of revision. The impugned order was contrary to law.

On behalf of respondents a preliminary objection was raised which was that this petition was not maintainable because petitioner No.2 applied under Residuary Scheme. The aggrieved party had an alternate remedy.

It was further submitted that the transfer of petitioner No.l was never cancelled. He as such had no locus standi.

Last of all it was argued that Imdad Ali's transfer was found to be the result of fraud and misrepresentation as such it had not become final.

I have considered the submission of the. learned counsel for the parties

The D.S:C. himself, went to the spot. Thereafter, he reported that lmdad Ali had no claim for transfer of any property. The P.T.D. obtained by him was through fraud. These findings had been arrived at after holding a. proper enquiry.

The impugned order was passed in the suo moto jurisdiction of the Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Commissioner was vested with such jurisdiction. He did not commit any irregularity in exercising this jurisdiction as the impugned order suffers from no error of law.

I do not think that it calls for interference. Dismissed.

No order as to costs.

A ,A

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.