Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No.163-R of 1983, decided on 20th May, 1985.

---Art. 9--Constitutional petition--Maintainability--Petitioners had filed a writ petition earlier on same facts which they had withdrawn unconditionally and without any permission to file fresh petition--Fresh petition on same facts to agitate same matter to obtain same relief, held, not maintainable.

Suraj Kumari v. Dr. D.C. Chutani A I R 1956 Punj. 157, Keesari Santamma v. Kanumatha Redi Venkatarama Reddi and others AIR 1935 Mad. 909 and Daryao and others v. The Stte of U.P. AIR 1961 S C 1457 ref.

Messrs Khan Mahal Cinema v. The District Magistrate P L D 1973 Note 27 at p. 36 rel.

---S. 2(2)--Transfer of property--Petitioner claiming that during pendency of their N . C . H . Form property in dispute was transferred to respondents--Perusal of original record showing that there existed no entry to the effect that petitioner had ever applied in Form N . C . H .- Circumstances highlighted in case casting a serious doubt on authenticity of certified copy of Form N . C . H . placed by petitioner on record- Petitioner also producing a receipt about submission of his N . C . H . Form but Deputy Settlement Commissioner stating in his parawise comments that it was a forged document--Prima facie petitioner not appearing to have filed any such Form--Petitioner keeping quiet for long after filing said N . C . H . Form and only moving authorities by an application after about fifteen years and that application also not pursued diligently--Conduct of petitioner in keeping quiet for these long years also going heavily against him--Held, petitioner having failed to establish conclusively that they had filed- transfer Form for property in dispute, they had no locus standi to challenge order of transfer of roperty in dispute to respondent. [pp. 2431, 2432, 2433] C, D, E, F, 7 & J

Abdul Malik and others v. The Chiet Settlement Commissi4er PLD 1967 Lah. 530 ref.

--Art. 9--Constitutional petition--Petitioners suppressing fact of his filing a writ petition earlier which had been withdrawn by them- Non-disclosure of this fact, held, a very serious circumstance which per se disentitled them to grant of equitable relief in constitutional jurisdiction.

---Art. 9--Constitutional jurisdiction--Petitioner had also filed a revision petition against order impugned in constitutional petition and had withdrawn revision whereas revision filed by respondents was still pending--Interference declined in constitutional jurisdiction--Petitioner could well have challenged impugned order in appropriate forum.

---S.2--Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9--Transfer of property--Petitioner's application pending before Chief Settlement Commissioner wherein they had requested that area in dispute be sold out to them--Property in dispute only earmarked and not finally transferred to respondent--Competent authority directed to dispose of property in accordance with law and not to implement order earmarking land in favour of respondent till final disposal of petitioner's application.

---S.2--Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9--Transfer of property--Petitioner's application under Residuary Property Scheme pending and not yet disposed of--Authority concerned directed to dispose of petitioner's application in accordance with law and after hearing respondents who would be entitled to raise objections before competent authority.

Abdur Rehman and another v. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner etc. P L D 1977 Lah. 576 ref.

S.M. Masud for Petitioners.

Shahzad Jehangir for Respondent 1.

Rai Muhammad Nawaz Kharl, Amjad Hussain Syed, S.M. Nasim, M. Arif and Mahmoodal Haq Thanvi for Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

Dates of hearing: 7th April, 21st and 25th May, 1985.

This order shall also dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 360-R of 1984, 475-R of 1984 and 486/11 of 1984 as the property involved in all these petitions is the same.

2. Facts necessary for the disposal of the. aforementianed petitions are that Evacuee Property bearing No.P-143, Ward No.10, Railway Road, Faisalabad, was a bungalow having a total area of 23 Kanals, 17 Marlas and 26 sq. ft. The main bungalow alongwith three times of the plinth area which came to 13 Kanals 16 Marlas and 13 sq. ft. was transferred to Ahadim Mohy-ud-Din and Messrs S. Mahmood, respondents Nos.3 and 4 in this petition by order, dated 17-5-1960 pa6sed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. One Raja Sultan Ahmad (not a party in the present proceedings) was transferred an area measuring 11 Marlas and 173 sq. ft. out of this property. Surplus, area measuring 9 Kanals, 9 Marlas and 271 sq. ft. was declared as available for disposal through public auction by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner,., vide order, dated 3-9-1977. Respondents Nos.3 and 4 feeling aggrieved with this order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner challenged it in a constitutional petition which was dismissed. Intra-Court Appeal No. 122 of 1979 filed by them also failed. They then took the matter to the Supreme Court but without any success and their Civil Appeal No. 251 of 1981 was dismissed on 30-1-1983 with the result that the aforementioned order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner declaring that the excess area was available for disposal through public auction was maintained. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 then filed Review Petition No. 2 of 1983 which was disposed of on 25-4-1983. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court declined to modify their earlier order passed in the Civil Appeal. It was, however, clarified that "the excess area available for disposal through public auction is only 9 Kanals 9 Marlas 271 sq. ft." It appears from the order passed in Review Petition that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had submitted that the Settlement Department in somewhat similar case of the transfer of a property situated on Lawrence Road, Lahore, had decided to sell the land found in excess to the transferees of the bungalow on certain terms. With reference to this submission, it was observed by the Supreme Court that "the petitioners if so advised may urge before the Settlement authorities if they have in some cases, sold to the transferees, area originally attached to a bungalow but found to be in excess of three times the plinth area, the petitioners may also be accorded a similar consideration. The Review Petition was thus disposed of in the aforesaid terms by order, dated 25-4-1983.

3. Muhammad Jamil and Mst. Sakina Begum petitioners in this petition claim to be in possession of a part of the property in dispute since 1960. They further claim that they submitted a joint N . C . H . Form to the Deputy Settlement Commissiont3r, Lyalipur, vide receipt No.2815, dated 93-7-1960 (photo copy Annex. A). It is alleged by them that their N . C . H . Form remained undisposed of and consequently they made a written,, application (Annex. B) in 1976 to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Faisalabad, for decision of their Transfer Form but with no result. Finally, they applied to the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 17-4-1983 (Annex. C) requesting that "as their earlier N.C.H. Form had not been disposed of by the Settlement authorities, they may be allowed to file a fresh form under Settlement Scheme No. IX." According to the 'petitioners, no action was taken even on this application. They, however, came to know that the DSC/Deputy Administrator (R.P) by his order, dated 5-2-1983 had transferred an area measuring 1 Kanal, 9 Marlas and 13 sq. yards out of property in dispute to Muhammad Ramzan,. respondent No. 2. Petitioners, therefore, filed the present petition (W.P.No.163/R-1983), to challenge the aforementioned order of the DSC/Deputy Administrator, dated 5-2-1983 on the ground, inter alia, that no part of the property in dispute could be transferred to any body without disposing of their Form N.C. H. which was still pending. Petitioner, therefore, prayed that the impugned order, dated 5-2-1983 passed by the DSC/Deputy Administrator respondent No. 1 be declared to be without lawful authority. They also sought a direction to respondent No. 2 "to dispose of the N . C . H . Form of the petitioners according to law and not to transfer any part of the property to any body without first disposing of the said form."

In the present petition as originally filed, DSC/Deputy Administrator and Muhammad Ramzan, transferee of a part of the property in dispute were made respondents. During the pendency of this petition, however, Khadim Mohy-ud-Din and Mrs. S. Mahmood moved an application (C.M. 2361/83) for being impleaded as respondents on the ground that they had also applied to the Settlement authorities for purchasing the property in dispute. They were accordingly added as respondents Nos. 3 and 4 by order, dated 15-12-1984.

4. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 also filed W.P.No.360/R of 1984 stating that in pursuance of the aforereferred observations of the Supreme Court made on their Review Petition No.2 of 1983, they had filed an application before the Chief Settlement Commissioner/ MBR(ShR), respondent No.l, for the purchase of the excess area of their bungalow. They had filed another application before respondent No. 1 claiming the right of first purchase of the excess area on the basis of a memo. , dated 8-7-1984 issued by respondent No.l which provided that the available properties should be offered first to the occupants thereof. Grievance of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 made in their writ petition is that their applications for purcahse of the excess area in dispute have not been disposed of. They have, therefore, prayed that respondents Nos. 1 and 2, i.e. the Settlement authorities be directed "to dispose of the petitions submitted by the petitioners for the purchase of the excess area measuring 9 Kanals 9 Marlas and 271 sq. ft. of bungalow No.P/143 (Khasra No.1458) Ward No.10, Faisalabad, which is in their possession since 1960, in accordance with law."

It may be pertinently stated that while Writ Petition No.360/R-84 was still at motion stage, respondents Nos. 3 and 4 made an application (C.M. No.2247/84) in which it was submitted that they have come to know that the respondent department has taken steps to transfer the land in dispute to some persons including one Muhammad Bakhsh. Interim relief was, therefore, sought to the effect that the land in dispute be not transferred to anybody pending the final disposal of their writ petition. On this application, it was directed by this Court by order, dated 17-9-1984 that "status quo shall be maintained in the meanwhile".

5. After the aforesaid order of status quo was passed, Settlement Commissioner (Urban) through memo., dated 30-9-1984, informed Mian Muhammad Bakhsh that "the Government of the Punjab, has been pleased to accept your request for transfer of land (about 8 Kanals) found surplus beyond the entitlement of Mr. Khadim Mohi-ud-Din, transferee of Bungalow No. P-143, Ward No. 10, Railway Road, Faisalabad." It was, however, made clear in this memo. that this was subject to the condition that the order of status quo passed by this Court on 17-9-1984 in W.P. No. 360/R of 1984 "is vacated and the excess land becomes available for disposal." Mian Muhammad Bakhsh moved an application (C.M. 538/83) for being impleaded as party in W.P.360/R-84 on the ground that the property in dispute has since been earmarked for transfer to him, vide aforesaid memo. This application was allowed on 27-2-1985 and Mian Muhammad Bakhsh was impleaded as respondent No.3, subject to all just exceptions.

6. Mst. Sakina Begum petitioner in W.P.No.163/R of 1983 filed another Writ Petition No.475/R-84 to challenge the transfer of the property in dispute to Mian Muhammad Bakhsh made vide, order, dated 30-9-1984. In this writ petition, she impleaded Mian Muhammad Bakhsh as respondent No.2 and Khadim Mohy-u3-Din and S. Mahmood as respondents Nos. 3 and 4. Her case in this petition is that the property in dispute could not be transferred to Mian Muhammad Bakhsh during the subsistence of the order of status quo and while the N.C.H. Form jointly filed by her and Muhammad Jamil was still undisposed of.

7. Yet another Writ Petition No.486/R-84 was filed by Sultan Muhammad claiming that he was in possession of 1 Kanal 9 Marlas and 13 sq. ft. out of the excess area measuring 9 Kanals and 9 Marlas and that he had also submitted Form for its transfer under the Scheme for the Management and Disposal of available Urban Properties on 2-8-1982. Grievance of Sultan Muhammad petitioner is that his case for the transfer of the area in his possession has not been decided and is still pending with the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Faisalabad, although Muhammad Ramzan, who was similarly placed was transferred the area. in 'his possession on 5-2-1983. Sultan Muhammad petitioner also challenged transfer of a part of land to Mian Muhammad Bakhsh out of surplus area in dispute. He, therefore, prayed that the order, dated 30-9-1984 transferring an area of 8 Kanals to Mian Muhammad Bakhsh be declared to be without lawful authority and that the Settlement authorities be directed "to decide the application of the petitioner which is still pending before the learned Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Faisalabad".

8. All the aforesaid writ petitions were admitted to regular hearing on different dates. As they relate to the same property they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order. It will be noticed from the above resume of facts that the petitioners in all these petitions have claimed that they have applied for transfer of whole or part of the property in dispute but their applications have not been disposed of. They have also challenged the orders of the Settlement authorities whereby the property in dispute or part thereof has been transferred to some of the respondents.

9. I first take up Writ Petition No.163/R of 1983. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents in this petition raised two-fold preliminary objections. Their first objection was that Muhammad Jamil and Mst. Sakina Begum petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No.148/R of 1983 on the same facts which they had withdrawn unconditionally on 24-4-1983 and, as such, the present petition on the same subject-matter in not maintainable. They have placed on record certified copy of the order, dated 24-4-1983 whereby earlier writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn. This is a short order which is reproduced hereunder in extenso:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing the case quite for some time has decided to withdraw this petition. Disposed of having been withdrawn."

Second objection of the learned counsel for the respondents was that the petitioners have not disclosed in the present writ petition that they had earlier filed and withdrawn writ petition No.148/R of 1983. Suppression of this material fact has rendered the petitioners disentitled to the grant of equitable relief in writ jurisdiction.

Learned counsel for the petitioners in reply to the aforereferred objections submitted in the first instance that in the earlier writ petition, petitioners had only sought a direction for disposal of their Form N . C . H , whereas in the present petition, they have also prayed for additional relief seeking the quashment of order, dated 5-2-.1983 passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner/ Deputy Administrator (R.P) transferring a portion of the property in dispute to Muhammad Ramzan respondent. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the subject-matter of the present writ petition was different from that of the earlier writ petition and with the order, dated 5-2-1983 having been passed by the Settlement authorities transferring a part of the property in dispute to Muhammad Ramzan respondent, petitioners got a fresh cause of action. Learned counsel, therefore, argued that the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition did not constitute a bar to the maintainability of the present petition. As regards the second objection raised on behalf of the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present writ petition was based on fresh cause of action. Non-disclosure of withdrawal of earlier writ petition was not necessary and in any case, it was not so material as to disentitle the petitioners to claim the relief in writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioners also referred to Suraj Kumari v. Dr. D.C. Chutani AIR 1956 Punjab 157 to contend that withdrawal of a writ petition at a limine stage is no bar to the second petition filed even on the same facts and that the principles contained in Order XXIII, rule 1, C.P.C. relating to suits cannot be strictly applied to the petitioners' case for exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. In the case cited by the learned counsel, first writ petition was withdrawn on the understanding that the petitioners shall file a fresh petition. Second writ petition was, therefore, entertained with the observation that "it is clear that in the present case the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with our approval, and with at least our implied consent that a fresh petition on more or less the same grounds would be entertained..." This judgment is evidently of no help to the petitioners because they had withdrawn their earlier writ petition unconditionally and without any permission to file the fresh petition. A Learned counsel also referred to two more judgments viz. Keesari Santamma v. Kanumatha Reddi Venkatarama Reddi and others AIR 1935 Mad. 909 and Daryso and others v. The State of U.P. AIR 1961 S C 1457. These judgments need not be .discussed in detail because they have no direct bearing on the case in hand in so far as the first judgment related to applicability of Order XXII I , rule 1, C . P. C . to a fresh suit for partition and the second judgment discussed the nature and scope of rule of res judicata and as to whether it can be invoked against a petition under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution on the basis of a prior decision on a petition under Article 226 of that Constitution.

10. It is true that in their first writ petition, petitioner had prayed only for a direction to be issued to the Settlement authorities to dispose of their transfer Form /applications and in the present petition, they have also sought the reversal of the order, dated 5-2-1983 passed by the D.S.C./Deputy Administrator transferring a part of the property in dispute to Muhammad Ramzan respondent. This, however, does not make any material difference because the petitioners' case in both the petitions is essentially the same viz. that they had applied in Form N'.C.H. for transfer of the property in dispute but their Transfer Form has not been disposed of. Relief seeking the quashment of the order of transfer in favour of Muhammad Ramzan is only secondary and consequential. Basic question, therefore, is whether the petitioners having withdrawn their earlier writ petition can maintain the present petition to seek the relief the nature of mandamus for disposal of their Transfer Form /applications. In my view, petitioners having abandoned this relief by withdrawing the earlier writ petition cannot file a fresh petition to reagitate the same matter and obtain the same relief. On somewhat similar facts, it was held by this Court in Messrs Khan Mahal Cinema v. The District Magistrate P L D 1973 Note 27 at p. 36 that the first writ petition having been withdrawn unconditionally and without permission to file the second petition, fresh petition on the same subject-matter is barred by virtue of Order XXIII, rule 1, C.P.C. which provisions are applicable to the proceedings in writ jurisdiction.

11. As regards the second relief claimed in the present petition relating to the quashment of the order of the Settlement authorities, dated 5-2-1983, suffice it to observe that the petitioners shall have locus standi to agitate this matter only if they can show that they had duly applied for transfer of the property in dispute and during the pendency of their application, premises in dispute have been transferred to respondent No.2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently contended on this aspect of the matter that the petitioners were neither in possession of any part of the property in dispute nor they ever applied for transfer thereof. Learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.3 and 4 further submitted that the petitioners were inducted into the premises in dispute by Muhammad Ramzan who himself was a licensee under respondents Nos.3 and 4 and, as such, they were not entitled to claim the transfer of the property in dispute. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submitted that the certified copy of N . C . H . Form placed on this .record by the petitioners is a forged document. He pointed out that his client applied for obtaining certified copy of N . C . H . Form allegedly filed by the petitioners but the application (Annex. R/1) was returned to respondent No.2 with the report that no such Form N.C.H. was available on the file. Learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that Form N.C.H. was not available now on the departmental file but he took up the position that the same has been removed by some interested persons.

In order to demonstrate that the petitioners never applied for transfer of the property in dispute and certified copy of N . C. H. Form produced by them was a forged document, learned counsel for respondent No.2 pointed out that (i) the certified copy is shown to have been obtained by the petitioners on 3-11-1982 but they did not file it with their earlier writ petition. It was not filed even with the present petition and was placed on the record, for the first time, after filing the present petition. Submission of the learned counsel was that it was manoeuvred by the petitioners after filing the present petition otherwise they would have certainly filed it with the first writ petition and also alongwith the present petition. (ii) That the position of the department consistently is that the petitioners never submitted N.C.H. Form. (iii) That the certified copy bears an endorsement showing that it was applied for on 3-11-1982 and the application given serial No.462. Respondent No.2 applied for getting copy of ( (.4 ) entered at serial No.462. Application (Annex. R/2) was returned in original to respondent with the report that the application entered at serial No.462 was given by Mst. Aisha Begum for obtaining copy of N . C . H . Form filed for property No.P.215, Ward 6, Faisalabad, which was a different property. This, according, to the learned counsel, shows that the petitioners never applied for certified copy of N . C . H . Form nor was it genuinely supplied to them and that they fabricated the certified copy in question to bolster up their claim in the writ petition.

In view of the aforementioned submissions made on behalf of the respondent, I summoned the original record in order to ascertain the correct position. Departmental representative produced N.C.H. Forms Register (C.S.C-11). This register did not contain any entry to show that the petitioners was ever applied in Form N . C . L . Departmental repress nature also produced the relevant register to show that the application of one Mst. Aisha for certified copy of the N . C . H . Form in respect of Property No.215, Ward No.6, was entered at Serial No.462. Photo copy of the application entered at serial No.462 was also shown to me which bore an endorsement that the original application was returned to the applicant.

12. Points raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the circumstances highlighted hereinabove cast a serious doubt on the 4 authenticity of the certified copy of Form N.C.H. placed by the petitioners on this record.

The only other document produced by the petitioners to show that they submitted the N . C . H . Form is a copy of receipt No. 21115 slated 23-7-19110 (Annex. A). Regarding this receipt, Deputy Settlement Commissioner, respondent No.1, stated in his parawise comments that "receipt is forged. The last entry of the N.C.H. Form as per C.S.C. 4 Register is 911." The register produce by the departmental representative, as noted above, also did not euntabi any entry showing the submissions of N . C . H . Form by the petitioners. No reliance can, therefore, be placed on the copy of receipt (Annex. A). it may also be noted that the petitioners did riot produced the original receipt. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the petitioners did not file N . C. H . Form for transfer of the property in dispute. It is also significant that the petitioners, who allegedly filed N.C.H. Form in 1960, took no steps for its disposal until 1976 when they are said to have approached 1; the Deputy Settlement Commissioner through an application (Annex. B). Even this application does not appear to have been pursued diligently. Petitioners then claim to have moved an application (Annex. C) before the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 17-4-1985 wherein instead of pressing for the disposal of their N . C . H . Form, they made a request for permission to file a Form under Settlement Scheme No.IX. This conduct of the petitioners in keeping quiet for all these long years also goes heavily against them.

In view of the foregoing discussion, petitioners having failed to establish conclusively that they had filed transfer form for the property in dispute, have no locus standi to challenge the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner/ Deputy Administrator, dated 5 -2-1983 transferring a part of tire property in dispute to Muhammad Ramzan respondent.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued in the alternative that even if the petitioners hats not filed N.C.H, farm, they being in possession of the property in dispute are entitled to Its transfer without submitting any" form. For this submission, reliance was placed on Abdul Malik and others v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner P L D 1967 Lah. 530. The case cited related to unauthorised occupants of evacuee building sites who had built permanent buildings thereon but their claim for transfer of those sites was refused for the reason that they had submitted belated forms. Order of the Settlement authorities was set aside by this Court holding that the Schedule to the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1953, makes even unauthorised persons eligible for the transfer of the evacuee building sites upon which they have raised permanent construction. The case cited by the learned counsel is distinguishable from the present case.

It was then submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners' application (Annexure 'C') addressed to the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 17-4-1983 for permission to file a fresh application under Residual Property Scheme is still pending and the same may be ordered to be disposed of. So far as this application is concerned, petitioners may pursue it before the Chief Settlement Commissioner who shall, of course, dispose it of in accordance with law.

14. Before parting with this case, I would like to observe that l non-disclosure by the petitioners of the fact that they had earlier filed a writ petition which they had withdrawn is a very serious circumstance which, per se, disentitles them to grant of equitable relief in writ jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance brought to my notice during the' course of the arguments which has not been denied by the learned counsel for petitioners is that Mst. Sakina petitioner had filed a revision petition against the order of the D.S.C./Deputy Administrator dated 5-2-1983 but withdrew it, whereas, the revision petition filed by respondents Nos.3 and 4 against that order is still pending. This circumstance has also weighed with me in declining to exercise the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Petitioners could well have challenged the impugned order in the appropriate forum.

For all the reasons aforementioned, I am constrained to bold that the petitioners have failed to make out a case for this Court's interference in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Result, therefore, is that this petition (Writ Petition No.163/R of 1983) fails and the same is hereby dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs. Petitioners may, however, if so advised, pursue their application (copy Annexure 'C') which they had' ' allegedly made before the Chief Settlement Commissioner seeking permission to file a fresh application under[ Settlement Scheme NO.IX, which application, shall, of course, be disposed of in accordance with law.

Writ Petition No. 475/1 of 1984:

15. Facts giving rise to this petition (Writ Petition No.475/R of 1984) have already been stated in para. 5 ante, which need not be reproduced. Mst. Sakina Begum petitioner herein was also a petitioner in Writ Petition No.163/R of 1983. She has challenged the transfer of property in dispute to Mian Muhammad Bakhsn, respondent, mainly on the ground. that the impugned transfer could not be made while her Form N.C. H . was still pending and had not been disposed of. It has been held in Writ Petition No.163/R of 1983 that it was not proved that N . C . H . Form was filed. That writ petition has been dismissed for want of locus standi. This petition is also, therefore, dismissed for the same reason but with no order as to costs.

Writ Petition No. 360/1 of 1984:

16. Khadim Mohy-ud-Din and Mst. S. Mahmood petitioners in this petition (Writ Petition No.360/R of 1984) claimed to have moved applications before the Chief Settlement Commissioner/ M. B. R. (S & R) for the purchase of the property in dispute which applications have not been disposed of. They, therefore, prayed that respondents Nos.l and 2 i.e. the Settlement authorities be directed to dispose of their applications for the purchase of the excess area measuring 9 Kanals 9 Marlas and 271 sq. ft. This petition has been contested mainly by Mian Muhammad Bakhsh, who was impleaded as respondent in this petition at his own request. An area measuring about 8 Kanals was ordered to be transferred to said Mian Muhammad Bakhsh out of the property in dispute. Learned counsel appearing for the said respondent submitted that the petitioners' case for transfer of the property in dispute was dismissed upto the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and that being so, they have no right for its purchase. Petitioners have admittedly moved two applications before the Chief Settlement Commissioner requesting therein that the area in dispute be sold out to them. They have based their claim on some precedent as also on a memo., dated 8-7-1984 issued by the Chief Settlement Commissioner. It is not denied that the applications, details of which have been given in para. 4 above, are still pending. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the property in dispute has not been transferred to his client. It has only been earmarked for transfer to him. I quite agree with him. In fact, the property in dispute could not have been transferred to Mian Muhammad Bakhsh respondent or anyone else during the subsistence of the order of status quo issued by this Court in the present writ petition on 17-9-1984. It was for this reason that the memo., dated 30-9-1984 seeking transfer of 8 Kanals of land to Mian Muhammad Bakhsh respondent was made subject to the condition that the order of status quo, dated 17-9-1984 "is vacated and the excess K land becomes available for disposal." As the applications moved by the petitioners are still pending, Chief Settlement Commissioner/M.B.R. (S & R) or any other competent officer shall dispose them of in accordance with law, of course, after hearing the petitioners and Mian Muhammad Bakhsh respondent. It is, however, made clear that the memo dated 30-9-1984 seeking to transfer 8 Kanals of land in favour of Mian Muhammad Bakhsh respondent shall remain in abeyance until the final disposal of the petitioners' applications for the purchase of the property in dispute. Writ Petition No. 360/11 of 1984 thus stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms but there shall be no order as to costs.

Writ Petition No. 486/11 of 1984:

17. Facts giving rise to this petition (W.P.No.486/R of 1984) have been set forth in para. 6 and which need not be repeated. The only grievance made by the petitioner is that he had applied for transfer of a part of the property in dispute in his possession under Residual Property Scheme but his application has not been disposed of although the application of Muhammad Ramzan similarly placed has been disposed of. Petitioner therefore, prayed that the Settlement authorities be directed to decide his application which is still pending. He further prayed that the order, dated 30-9-1984 (Annexure 'F') with the writ petition transferring about 8 Kanals of land to Mian Muhammad Bakhsh be set aside. Mr. S. M. Nasim, Advocate, appearing for Khadim Mohy-ud-Din and Mrs. S. Mahmood, impleaded as respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in this petition, submitted that the petitioner entered into possession as a tenant under the said respondents on 2-2-1979, and executed a rent note in their favour. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 initiated ejectment proceedings as a result of which petitioner was ordered to fee ejected by the Additional District Judge. Writ Petition filed by the petitioner against his ejectment was dismissed and his Intra-Court appeal also failed. These facts have not been disclosed in this writ petition. L It was submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner being a tenant under the respondents is not entitled to the transfer of the premises in dispute in the presence of the respondents, who are and another v. The Deputy Lah. 576. I do not wish to go into these questions because admittedly the petitioners, application under Residual Property Scheme is pending) which has not yet been disposed of.

As regards order, dated 30-9-1984 passed in favour of Mian Muhammad Bakhsh, it has already been observed in Writ Petition No.360/RI of 1984, that the order was subject to the condition that the order oil status quo passed by this Court was vacated. Even the learned counsel appearing for Mian Muhammad Bakhsh conceded that the order in question did not amount to transfer of the premises in dispute in favour of Mian Muhammad Bakhsh. By this order, only the area in dispute was earmarked for transfer in favour of Mian Muhammad Bakhsh. That being so, the order in question shall not be implemented until the disposal of the petitioners application.

18. In view of what has been said above, this petition Writ Petition No. 486/11 of 1984 is disposed of with the observation that the petitioners application under Residual Property Scheme shall be disposed of in accordance with law, of course, after hearing respondents Nos. 3 and 4 who shall be entitled to raise all the objections before the competent authority. There shall be no order as to costs.

Authorities concerned shall dispose of the matters pending before them expeditiously.

M. Y. H. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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