Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeals NOS. 829 and 830 of 1981, decided on 23rd August, 1984.

(From the judgment, dated 4‑7‑1981 of the Lahore High Court in W.P. No.472/R of 1975 and R.P. No. 80 of 1980, respectively).

‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10‑‑Transfer of property through auction during pendency of N.C.H. form filed by occupant‑‑Auction set aside‑‑Occupant held to be entitled to transfer of property‑‑Order assailed in revision unsuccessfully‑‑Filing of N.C.H. form being a finding of fact and contest being between a displaced person in possession who had made an application for transfer and a subsequent auction‑purchaser, Supreme Court declined to interfere in its discretionary jurisdiction to grant leave to auction‑purchaser.

Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah‑ud‑Din, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing:, 23rd August, 1984.

‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 4‑7‑1981 (in these two petitions: C.P.No.829/1981 and C.P.‑No.830/1981) of the Lahore High Court; whereby two review petitions arising out of an urban settlement case, were decided against the petitioner.

The petitioner is a transferee through auction of the property in dispute held in May, 1971. While predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondent‑‑Wazir Muhammad is a non‑claimant in possession who had sought transfer through an N.C.H. form submitted in 1968, It has been held that without the disposal of Wazir Muhammad's from the auction could not have taken place. Accordingly it was held that Waziz Muhammad was entitled to the transfer. The petitioner auction‑purchaser has sought leave to appeal.

In face of the aforenoted simple proposition that Wazir Muhammad being in possession of the property and having submitted an N.C.H. form for its transfer was entitled to the transfer of the property unless there was an un-surmountable hurdle, which in the circumstances of the case was none, the auction of the property was illegal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it has not been established that Wazir Muhammad had submitted any form. He further argued that the High Court for the same reason visualised the other position that even without the submission of the form Wazir Muhammad being in undisputed occupation would be entitled to the transfer of the property under the prevailing law, at the relevant time.

We do not agree with the learned counsel. Regarding the submission of the form by Wazir Muhammad suffice it to say that the learned Judge in the High Court relying on a report of a Settlement Inspector and the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 4‑5‑1968 held that N.C.H. form was in reality submitted by Wazir Muhammad. This being finding of fact if other possibilities vis‑a‑vis the legal positions prevailing at different stages of litigation were visualised, it would not dilute the effect of the findings of fact. It is not necessary to deal with the other aspects of the case. Contest before us being between a displaced person in possession who had made an application for transfer and a subsequent auction‑purchaser, no justification has been made out for interference in the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court to grant leave to appeal. These petitions accordingly are dismissed.

M. I. Petitions 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.