Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 402/R of 1979, decided on 3rd February, 1985.

---S.10--Five Marlas Scheme--Transfer of plot--Construction-Demolition--Right of transfer--Construction made on plot in possession of petitioners was demolished due to flood--Application for transfer of said plot was rejected on ground that there was no Construction on plot--Petitioners, held, could not be deprived of their tight simply because construction was demolished due to flood.

M.P. Sabir for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

Petitioner s husband Muhammad Bakhsh and her son Abdullah filed Forms for transfer of the plot in their possession under Five Marlas Scheme. These were rejected on 29-9-1976, for the reason that the construction on the plot has fallen down due to Sal0b and the plot was vacant. Petitioner's husband having died, the petitioner herself and her son filed Forms alongwith the affidavits for transfer in the revised Katchi Abadi Scheme. A report was submitted by the Settlement Inspector to the effect that the applicants were in possession of the plot since 1968. Their construction was demolished in the year 1973 but they raised construction again where they were living The area is 8 Marlas 104 Sq. ft. They had no other plot in their possession. If deemed fit, their Forms be entered in Katchi Abadi Scheme. The report is dated 18-1-1979. It was rejected on the ground that since there was "no construction on the plot in October, 1976, and the applicants were not found in possession of the plot on the target .date viz. March, 1972, therefore, their belated applications cannot be considered as genuine applications at this late stage. Therefore, both the said applications are rejected and the plot is included in the auction pool." This is, vide order, dated 6-2-1979 passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Jhang. Hence, this constitutional petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that there was construction on the plot and that has been demolished by the flood. The petitioner has re-raised the construction. Simply because of the flood applicants could not be deprived of their rights. Nobody appears A to oppose the petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is quite sound. The impugned order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 6-2-1979 is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It is directed that the plot in question shall be transferred in favour of the applicants. As nobody has appeared to oppose the petition, there shall be no order as to costs.

H.B.T.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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