Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1133/R of 1978, decided on 5th June, 1985.

---Art. 9--Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act XLV1I of 1958), S. 10--Bona fide purchaser of land through a registered deed--Mukhbari petition--Petitioner and respondents (other than those proceeded ex parte) moving application for compromise with no objection to acceptance of petition--High Court, however, ordering petitioner to deposit amount on basis of Rs.100 per produce index unit with Chief Settlement Commissioner in six monthly instalments with option to Settlement Authority to extend time if circumstances so warranted--Notified officer having not been heard, petitioner who was duly recorded in revenue record as owner, order of such notified officer, held, was void ab initio--However, in terms of compromise petition was si posed

of as per agreement of parties and as per agreement of petitioner and Settlement Authority with regard to payment.

Rafiq Ahmad Bajwa for Appellant.

A.R. Shaukat for Respondents.

Ch.Muhammad Nazir Ahmad for the Settlement Department.

Date of hearing: 5th June, 1985.

This writ petition has been filed on the grievance that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser for consideration and the sale was witnessed by a registered sale-deed of the year 1967 i.e. prior to the commencement of Mukhbari petition. So it is not a case of lis pendens.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is based on a mandatory proviso to section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 which unfortunately by most of the publishers in Pakistan has been omitted from being printed in the marketed books. I have sent for the original statute i.e.

the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 and therein the proviso to section 10 stands in its unamended form which is couched in terms of command and is prohibitory and it extends to the benefit of any person who is likely to be adversely affected by an order to be passed in terms of the main section. This observation was necessary in order to dispel the doubts which may be harboured by the counsel for the parties. It in other words means that the grievance of the petitioner is not without substance and is backed by a provision of law. 3. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, an application has been moved on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondents 1 to 6 that the writ petition be accepted as the respondents do not want to contest it and would like the petitioner to enjoy the property which he has purchased. Respondents 7 to 12 despite registered Postcards having been served have failed to appear as the case appears on day to day cause list till the same is exhausted. 4. Despite the fact that ostensibly there appeared to be no hurdle in the way of allowing of the compromise, I felt it necessary to send for the Legal Adviser for the Settlement Department Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad to be of assistance at this stage. I had asked a frank question to the petitioner whether in order to place his case beyond all doubts he would like to pay up the transfer price of about sixteen Acres of land to the Settlement Department under the prevailing policy of Rs.100 per produce index unit. The old man stated that he is willing to undergo this extraordinary burden despite the fact that he has already once paid over the sale price' to the vendors. 5. The learned Legal Adviser for the Settlement Department at this stage submits that the petitioner is doing well in order to cast off all doubts which may be hovering over his title by depositing the amount at the rate of Rs.100 per produce index unit with the Chief Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner prays that since he is undergoing a double burden, he may be allowed to deposit this amount within one year by instalment. The learned Legal Adviser for the Settlement Department however insists that it should be within six months. I am inclined to agree with Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad. The petitioner shall accordingly deposit the amount calculated on the basis of Rs.100 per produce index unit with the Chief Settlement Commissioner in instalments in six months from today. It will however be open for the learned Chief Settlement Commissioner/Member, Board of Revenue (Settlement and Rehabilitation) to extend the time if the petitioner can show him a bona fide difficulty. 6. There can be no dispute that the notified officer had not heard the vendee who was duly recorded in the revenue record as the owner and thus the impugned order is void ab initio. However, since there is a compromise, the writ petition is disposed of in accordance with the observations made above. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. A.A. Order accordingly.