Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.584/R of 1976, decided on 23rd November,1985.

---S. 2--Transfer of property--Permanent Transfer Deed issued in favour of petitioner--Plea of respondent, that a part of property in question was a plot and that he was entitled to its transfer rejected by Settlement Authorities--Question of transfer of property in favour of petitioner, held, could not be raised and no proceedings could be initiated against him especially after enactment of Repealing Act XIV of 1975 Petitioner served with a notice and no order adversely affecting petitioner made so far by Administrative Officer--Petitioner, held further entitled to challenge threatened action in view of impugned notice issued by Administrative Officer--Notice declared illegal and without jurisdiction and proceedings initiated by respondents against petitioner with regard to transfer of property in dispute quashed.

---Article 199--Constitutional jurisdiction--Invocation against threatened action--Prayer for issuance of appropriate writ against threatened action, held, not premature.

Mst. Iqbal Siddiqui v. Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Urban) and others P L D 1984 Lah. 291 rel.

Ch. Inayatullah Khan for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1985.

The petitioner invoked constitutional jurisdiction of this Court on receiving notice, dated 21-2-1976 issued by the Administrative Officer of the Settlement Department regarding property No.H/1215, Akbari Mandi, Lahore, transferred to him as claimant displaced person in 1959. The petitioner's contention was that the aforementioned property was transferred to him as one unit by the Settlement Department and the objection raised by Ghulam Hussain respondent No.2 that demolished portion of the property be treated as plot and should be disposed of as such, was finally turned down by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, vide order, dated 10-6-1974 (Annexure'K'). According to the petitioner, the matter could not be re-agitated by respondent No.2 before the Administrative Officer after issuance of the P.T.D. in his favour. The notice issued by the Administrative Officer respondent was, therefore, illegal and without jurisdiction.

2. No one has appeared to contest the above writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the question; of transfer of the property in dispute could not be raised before the Settlement Authorities after the issuance of P. T. D. in petitioner's favour. After the rejection of plea of respondent No.2 that a part of the property in question was a plot and that he was entitled to its transfer by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, no proceedings challenging the transfer of the disputed property to the petitioner could be initiated especially after the enactment of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner are not without substance. Although no order adversely affecting the petitioner has so far been made by the Administrative Officer, the petitioner is entitled to challenge the threatened action by the Administrative Officer in view of the impugned notice issued by him. His prayer for issuance of appropriate writ against the threatened action by respondent No.1 is, therefore, not premature. In this connection he has relied on Mst. Iqbal Siddiqui v. Assistant Settlement Commissioner (Urban) and others P L D 1984 Lah. 291.

.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner. is allowed and it is declared that notice, dated 21-2-1976 issued by the Administrative Officer is illegal and without jurisdiction and the proceedings initiated by respondent No.l, at the instance of respondent No.2 with regard to the transfer of property No.11.1215, Akbari Mandi, Lahore, in petitioner's favour are quashed. No order is made as to costs.

M. Y. H. Writ allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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