Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 899‑R of 1975, decided on 18th November, 1985.

‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S.10‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2‑‑Transfer of evacuee property‑‑Plea taken that claim form of transferee of property in dispute on basis of which same was transferred in his favour had already been utilized by such transferee in property previously transferred in favour of his brother with his consent‑‑Such plea being material and having great bearing on eligibility of transferee to disputed transfer in his favour, High Court remitted case to Notified officer to look into matter and decide case afresh in accordance with law.

Ch. Muhammad Abdullah for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent No.l.

Kh. Muhammad Taseer for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4.

Date of hearing: 18th November, 1985.

Zafar Saleem and two others have invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to challenge the legality. of an order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot on 17th of April, 1975 pertaining to the transfer of evacuee property bearing Nos.5/708 and 5/115 situate in Mohallah Chiraghpura, Sialkot.

2. Originally Property No.5/115 was transferred to Muhammad Shaft and Ghulam Rasool, his brother, predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents. Subsequently this transfer was cancelled as they failed to pay the transfer price. On an appeal by Muhammad Shafi, the property was transferred to him alone after Ghulam Rasool gave an application supported by his affidavit that he did not want the transfer of the house and that the whole house be transferred to Muhammad Shafi, his brother. Subsequently Muhammad Ibrahim associated with Muhammad Shaft and got the property transferred in his favour. He obtained P.T.D. of the property as well. Afterwards Ghulam Rasool obtained transfer of property No. 5/708 on the plea that he was in possession thereof. This transfer was assailed by the petitioners on the grounds that his claim form had already been utilized in the transfer of property No. 5/115. This plea was controverted by Ghulam Rasool. The case was reopened by the Additional Settlement Commissioner, Lahore Division, Lahore on a revision petition vide his order dated 16th of April, 1974. He remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner vide his order dated 17th of April, 1975 maintained the transfer of property No. 5/708 in favour of Ghulam Rasool and initiated action against Muhammad Shaft for obtaining transfer of Property No. 5/115 against a form which was meant for the transfer of Property No. 5/708. Property No. 5/708 had earlier been transferred to Noor Din on whose death Mst. Noor Zanib and Mst. Ghulam Fatima, petitioners No.2 and 3, his successors‑in‑interest, after clearing the dues, obtained P.T.D. and sold the property to Zafar Saleem Dar, petitioner No.l. They have assailed in the instant writ petition the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 17th of April, 1975 on the ground that since Ghulam Rasool had utilized his form in the transfer of property No.5/115 in favour of Muhammad Shaft, his brother, he was not entitled to the transfer of other property on the same form.

3. Muhammad Ibrahim who became transferee of Property No. 5/115 by way of association with Muhammad Shafi also filed a writ petition to assail the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 17th of April, 1975. His writ petition vide orders of today by this Court has been accepted and after declaring the order as ultra vires and of no legal effect, the case has been remanded to the authority notified under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 for fresh decision. The question whether the claim form of Ghulam Rasool was or was not utilized in the transfer of Property No. 5/115 in favour of Muhammad Shafi, his brother, is material having great bearing on the eligibility of Ghulam Rasool to the transfer of Property No.5/708. Therefore, I am left with no alternative but to accept this writ petition also and remit the case to the notified officer for decision afresh o the transfer of Property No.5/708 alongwith the dispute regarding the transfer of Property No.5/115. Order accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own 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.