Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 56 of 1981, decided on 21st August, 1984.

(From the order, dated 24‑11‑1980 of the Lahore High Court passed in L.P.A. No. 269 of 1971).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3‑‑Transfer of property‑‑Appeal time‑barred‑‑Composite property‑‑Four shops occupied by claimants and Chaubara by petitioner, a local‑‑Being indivisible, entire property transferred to four claimants jointly‑ Petitioner's L.H. form rejected‑‑Despite being fully aware of transfer, petitioner filed appeal after two years‑‑Dismissed as time‑barred‑ Constitutional petition and Letter Patent Appeal failed‑‑Order being unexceptionable, petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Sher Zaman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents Nos. 1, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16.

Date of hearing: 21st August, 1984.

The petitioner, a local, was in occupation, since 1951, of a residential Chaubara in composite property comprising four shops and residential portion. With the commencement of the Settlement operations, the entire property was transferred on 26‑11‑1959 jointly in favour of the four occupants of the shops who were claimants. The petitioner had also filed L. H. Form but the same was rejected on 25‑12‑1959. He remained silent for two years until 18‑9‑1961 when he agitated the matter by filing an appeal. Having failed before the Settlement authorities, he moved Writ Petition No. 85‑R of 1964 and when the same was dismissed on 5‑7‑1971, he filed a Letters Patent Appeal which too was dismissed by the impugned order, dated 24‑11‑1980. Aggrieved he has through this petition sought leave to appeal.

2. The order of transfer of the property, dated 26‑11‑1959, whereby the petitioner had been ousted, has not been produced and there is no explanation for the lapse. However, as observed by the L.P.A. Bench, the property had been declared indivisible and as such the petitioner being a local could not have been entitled to transfer of any portion thereof. That the property was held indivisible also finds support from the fact that it had been transferred jointly in favour of the occupants of the shops. The Additional Settlement Commissioner while rejecting the petitioner's appeal on 8‑11‑1961 had observed:‑

"The appellant (present petitioner) accepted this position some two years back and it is understood that he has also been paying the rent to the respondents for a certain period but now he has filed this appeal which is decidedly time‑barred. Transfer of this property to the respondents was in the full knowledge of the appellant considerably long ago and if he was at all aggrieved he should have come up in appeal within the time prescribed by law."

3. In this background of the case no fault can be found with the view taken by the High Court. The petition is dismissed.

M . I . 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.