Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition No. 750 of 1984, decided on 5th June, 1985.
(On appeal from the Judgment, dated 28‑4‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, passed in I.C.A. No. 72 of 1984).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10‑‑Settlement Scheme No. VI‑‑Transfer of urban evacuee land‑‑Respondent's transfer prior in time and P.T.D. validly issued in his favour by Settlement authorities immune from interference‑ Petitioner, after having conceded to remand order by High Court, not permitted to assail finding of Settlement Commissioner on question of fact‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Ch. Muhammad Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 5th June, 1985.
.‑‑The dispute in this petition relates to a small plot bearing Khasra Nos. 1877 and 1878 and measuring 8 Marlas, situate in Nawan Kot, Jenak Nagar, Lahore.
The appellant claimed to be in its possession since 1950 and further that he raised some construction on it. On 2nd November, 1959, he applied for its transfer under Settlement Scheme No. VI, but before it could be transferred to him, respondent, a local, also applied for the transfer of a building site bearing Khasra Nos. 1875, 1876, 1877 and 1878 measuring 51 Marlas on which he claimed to have built two rooms. There was litigation between the parties with regard to its transfer and ultimately, the Lahore High Court, in Writ Petition No. 1132 of 1976, passed the following order:‑‑
"The respondent was transferred the area on 15‑2‑1965. He w as issued Permanent Transfer Deed on 28‑6‑1965. The petitioner was later on, transferred the area vide memo dated 28‑6‑1965. It is, therefore, obvious that the respondent's transfer prior in time, for which he had been issued Permanent Transfer Deed, is immune from interference by the Settlement authorities. The enquiry pending before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner can however, proceed to determine as to whether after the transfer in favour of the respondent, is there any evacuee area on the spot on which the petitioner has raised construction and can be transferred in his favour If that be so, the memorandum, dated 28‑6‑1965 earlier issued in his favour may be given effect to. The petition is thus disposed of leaving the parties to bear their own costs."
No further proceedings were taken against this order in the Supreme Court and on remand the Settlement Commissioner held as under:‑‑
"The then Deputy Settlement Commissioner, vide his order, dated 15‑2‑1965 transferred an area of 8 Marlas in the name of Muhammad Shafi, respondent, under Settlement Scheme No. VI. As already observed and held by me as per record the total evacuee area available for disposal is 7 Marlas 167 sq. ft upon which the respondent's house is constructed. No other evacuee area is available for transfer in favour of the petitioner, Sardar Muhammad whatever is in possession of Sardar Muhammad that is the property of respondent. The memorandum, dated 28‑5‑1965 issued in favour of Sardar Muhammad is thus of no legal effect. The area in possession of the petitioner is included in the P.T.D. of the respondent which was issued on the basis of a valid transfer order, dated 15‑2‑1965. The petitioner has not been able to make out a case in his favour. The enquiry is thus concluded against the petitioner."
Against this order, the petitioner again filed a constitution petition No. 1‑R of 1984, but did not succeed as the High Court held that the area transferred to the respondent was in accordance with the revenue record as well as the spot inspection, and that this area had been transferred to the respondent before its transfer to the petitioner. Accordingly, the order of the Settlement Commissioner was upheld.
The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the finding of the Settlement Commissioner on a question of fact, but the petitioner having conceded to the remand order by not preferring an appeal, we do not see any substance in the submission as the Deputy Settlement) Commissioner had factually determined the evacuee area available for transfer which left no balance for transfer to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition has no substance and is dismissed.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer