Find a Lawyer

---Art. 199--Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10--Settlement Scheme No. VI--Evacuee Property and Displace Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 2--Transfer of evacuee property--Constitutional jurisdiction--Exercise of--Orders of Settlement Authorities passed applying conscious mind to facts and circumstances of case, suffered from no jurisdictional defect and while passing such orders, Settlement Authorities had not flouted relevant provisions of law--Such orders, held, would not call for interference by High Court in constitutional jurisdiction.

Syed Shamim Abbas Bokhari for Petitioner.

Muhammad Nazir Ahmad and A.M. Anwar for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 7th December, 1985.

Through this constitutional petition, Mst. Majida Begum petitioner wants this Court to declare the orders, dated 5-9-1970 and 17-8-1973 of Deputy Settlement Commissioner and Settlement Commissioner respectively to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The dispute relates to a house allegedly constructed by Momin Khan, the husband of the petitioner on 5 Marlas of land attached to property No.32-B, Empress Road, Lahore. This property consisted of various annexes and quarters allotted to each annexee which have been independently transferred as full residential units to various occupants. The annexee transferred to Kanwar Khurshid Ali predecessor in interest of respondents Nos. 3 to 17, contained some quarter which were in the occupation of Momin Khan since dead and his wife Mst. Majida Begum. The case of the petitioner is that the quarters were constructed by her husband on 5 Marlas of land attached to the annexee of Kanwar Khurshid Ali. The husband of the petitioner filed h . C. H . Form for the transfer of the house. On the promulgation of Scheme No. VI Momin Khan filed Form No. 55-17-5 on 17-8-1960. Since no action was taken on Forms, therefore, he filed application in this behalf. before the D.S.C. but of no avail. He then, filed W.P. No. 839/11 of 1968 which was allowed on 5-12-1968 and the case was remitted to the D.S.C., with the direction that he should consider and adjudicate upon.

Form N.C.H. etc. of the husband of the petitioner in accordance with law. On remand, the Deputy settlement commissioner vide impugned order 5-9-1970 rejected the Form filed by the petitioners husband. Feeling aggrieved of this order Momin Khan filed revision before the Settlement Commissioner which was rejected on 17-8-1973 with the observation that:-

"In case, excess land is available for disposal it will have to be disposed of according to amended law. The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner will take physical measurement of the whole property and will declare after hearing all the occupants in the property in question about the excess area available for disposal according to law. If after proportionate allowance of three times of plinth area to the transferees of the property. No excess area is left out no other occupants will have any right for transfer of the property in their possession."

Hence this petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Forms filed by her husband have been rejected without legal and factual justification; that the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner has not properly considered and adjudicated upon the Forms submitted by her husband; that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has not complied with the direction given by the High Court in the writ petition; that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has completely ignored the petitioner's form filed under Settlement Scheme No. VI and that the Settlement Commissioner has also decided the case without properly considering the petitioner's husband's Form which was for the transfer of plot on which he had constructed house. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned orders.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. 1 have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that in compliance with the directions given by the High Court in its order, dated 5-12-1968, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner has applied his conscious mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. He has considered the Form of the husband of the petitioner filed under Scheme No. VI. In his order, he has stated:-

"It may be pointed out at the very outset that the Form submitted by the petitioner or his wife under Scheme No. VI has been voluntarily withdrawn by them and it has been conceded that the matter may be confined to the disposal of N . C . H . Form filed by Momin Khan bearing No. 636. The question of the transferring any portion of this property on the basis of alleged construction raised by Mst. Majida Begum or her husband does not arise in this case. It will, therefore, be presumed that the quarters contained original construction and will be disposed of under Scheme No . 1.

The learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner also held that:-

The N . C . H . Form filed by the petitioner bears No. 636 but the CSC-I1 Register is not available naturally we have to rely on the receipt produced by him regarding submission of NCH Form. The position of this case is that each of the annexes transferred to various persons also including quarters which were appertinent to such annexees and each annexed will be treated as an independent self-contained unit with all amenities attached to "House" which also includes within its definition, an outhouse, servant quarters and the garage etc, whatever the position may be, the outhouses and the garage are part of the main house and are to be disposed of such. In this view of the matter it is clear that the respondent has been transferred annexee alongwith quarters stated to be in possession of the petitioner. Therefore no part of this residential unit which is a house can be sliced away from the main portion and transferred to the petitioner "

The learned counsel has not been able to controvert the aforesaid observation made by the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The Settlement Commissioner has also considered all the aspects of the case. The impugned orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional defect. The relevant provisions of the law have not been flouted by the Settlement Authorities. The N.C.H. Form filed by the husband of the petitioner had already been withdrawn by him. The submissions made by the learned counsel do not make out a case for interference with the impugned orders.

For what has teen said above, there being no merit, the petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.