Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition N0.120/R of 1973, decided on 3rd February, 1986.

‑ ‑‑S.10‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws ("Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2(2)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Transfer of evacuee property‑‑ Function of documentation by Settlement Authority after issuance of P.T.D.‑‑Case being not of reopening any past and closed transaction but of substitution of names of rightful heirs of deceased allottee‑‑Settlement Authority, held, could perform function of documentation even after issuance of P.T.D.

‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2 (2)‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑ Agreement relied upon by petitioner being disputed document, held, it would neither be permissible nor, desirable for High Court to investigate genuineness of such document while exercising constitutional jurisdiction.

‑‑‑Art.199‑‑Evacuee Property arid Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S.2 (2)‑‑Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Authority below passed order after applying conscious mind to facts and circumstances of case, giving sound and cogent reasons in support thereof, without flouting provisions of relevant law‑‑Such order, in absence of any defect of jurisdiction, held, could not be interfered with in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.

Hafiz Muhammad Yusuf for Petitioner.

Malik Ashiq Hussain for Respondents.

Ch. Muhammad Nazir Ahmad, Sh. Nasir‑ud‑Din Ahmad and Sadiq Hayat Lodhi for the Settlement Department.

Through this constitutional petition, Hameeda Begum petitioner wants this Court to declare the order, dated 30‑9‑1978 of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Faisalabad to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The dispute relates to the House P.199 Sanatpura Faisalabad. The petitioner's case is that this house was allotted to Sher Muhammad husband of Hameeda Begum petitioner. On 12‑3‑1977 Sher Muhammad executed agreement in favour of the petitioner whereby his movable and immovable property was to be given to the petitioner alone after his death. He died on 11‑10‑1977. On 13‑3‑1978 respondents Nos.1 to 7 filed application before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Faisalabad respondent No.11, for including their names as successors of Sher Muhammad deceased. On this the petitioner appeared before the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and produced original agreement, dated 12‑3‑1977 to the effect that she was the only successor of the deceased. The agreement was however ignored by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and vide impugned order, he allowed application made by the respondent and included names of respondents Nos.1 to 7 as successors of Sher Muhammad deceased, hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and her husband were not obliged to produce agreement before the Settlement authorities during the lifetime of Sher Muhammad and that after the repeal of Settlement on 1‑7‑1975 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned judgment.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care'. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that it is not a case of reopening any past and closed transactions and in fact it is a case of substitution of the names of the rightful heirs on the death of the allottee, and that after issuing the P.T.D., the Settlement Authorities could perform function of documentation. Furthermore, the agreement relied upon by the petitioner is a disputed document and it is neither permissible nor desirable for this Court to investigate the genuineness of the document while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner has applied his conscious mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. He has given sound and, cogent reasons in support of his order which does nor suffer from any defect of jurisdiction. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner has not flouted the provisions of relevant law. I do not see any legal infirmity in the impugned order.

For what has been said above, there being no merit, the petition is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

H.B.T 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.