Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1135/R of 1978, decided on 8th May, 1985.

Art. 199-Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 3(1)(b)--Cancellation of allotment by notified officer--Status of bona fide purchaser of such land--Impugned order of notified officer, did not show that petitioners were privy to fraud or bogus allotment--Status of such bona fide purchaser was not in dispute- Such purchasers were served for first time after repeal of Evacuee Laws through Act XIV of 1975 and through citation in newspaper- Authority failed to show that vendees were served in normal course and substituted service was resorted to after such course--However, in view of prayer and stance of party that they were ready to pay up price per produce index unit to Settlement Authority, it was not necessary to go for legal niceties--Petitioners were directed to approach appropriate authority for sale of land under provisions of Act XIV of 1975--Authority was directed to deal with request of petitioners--In case petitioners were found to be entitled to benefits of provisions of Act XIV of 1975, land should be transferred to them on payment of usual charges prescribed by Settlement Authority.

A. Basit with Ch. Shahid Mahmood for Petitioners.

Shahzad Jehangir for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 8th May, 1985

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is directed against the order of a notified officer concealing the allotment of a claimant Abdul Majid from whom the petitioners art purchased since the year 1964.

2. It is beyond dispute that the petitioners are in possession of the land ever since the purchase. The learned counsel for the states that he would not be arguing the writ petition on the merits or demerits of the order impugned since his clients are ready to take up a fair stance to pay up the price per produce index unit to the Settlement Department under the proviso to section 3(1)(b) of .Act XIV of 1975 and the scheme framed for that purpose.

3. The impugned order of the notified officer doe:: not show that., the petitioners were privy to any fraud or bogus allotment. Their status as a bona fide purchaser is, therefore, not in dispute. They, were also served for the first time after the repeal of the Act through a citation in a newspaper and in the report submitted by the department there is nothing to show that the notified officer tried to serve them and only thereafter when service in normal course was not possible that resort was made to the substituted service. The citation also has appeared for the first time after the repeal of the Act and that too at the wrong address. There is no written statement filed on behalf of the department to controvert the averments made by the petitioner supported by affidavit.

4. However, in view of the prayer and the stance taken by the petitioners I do nut think it necessary to go into the legal niceties. On, my asking, the learned Legal Adviser fur the Settlement Departments, Mr. Shah', Jehangir has appeared. The stand taken by him is that the matter of the right to purchase by the petitioners may be referred to the A.D.C.(G), Gujranwala, who hats been authorised to deal with such request and that since this was a. pending matter, therefore, there would arise no question of any plea

of limitation being raised in opposition to this request .

5. It is now for the petitioners to approach the A.D.C.(G), Gujranwala with a request for sale of the land to them under the aforesaid provision of law. The A.D.C (G), Gujranwala shall deal with, the request of the petitioners and if they are found entitled to the) benefit of the aforesaid proviso and the scheme the land shall be transferred to them on payment of usual charges prescribed by the Settlement Department .

The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be however, in the circumstances no order as to costs.

A.A.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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