Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1259/ R of 1976, decided on 15th December, 1985.

---S. 10--Grant of proprietary rights--Mode of--Settlement Authority, held, could grant proprietary rights by Permanent Transfer Deed and not by a sale-deed.

---Industrial establishment--Petitioners surrendering their rights to respondents through agreement and admitting same--Petitioners having been substituted by respondents, held, would cease to have locus atandi to impugn manner in which proprietary rights in such industrial concern were granted to respondents.

---Art. 199--Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 11--Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of--Where persons divested themselves of proprietary rights in favour of respondents through agreement, such transferors of rights, held, would have no locus standi to challenge mode of conferment of such rights on transferees by Settlement Authority--Mode of conferment of proprietary rights could not be challenged through constitutional petition before High Court.

Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba for Petitioners.

Qamar-uz-Zaman for Respondent No. 1.

Mian Saeed-ur-Rahman Farrukh for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

Date of hearing: 15th December, 1985.

Muhammad Afzal Bhatti and Naseer Ahmad have filed this writ petition to assail the validity of an order passed by the Settlement Commissioner, (Industries) Punjab, Lahore on 10th of May, 1976 whereby he dismissed their miscellaneous application.

2. An evacuee industrial concern known as Rajindar Single Rice Mills, situate at Hafizabad, District Gujranwala was auctioned on 16th of October, 1957 by the Industries Rehabilitation Board in pursuance of the instructions issued on 17th of July, 1957 by the Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of the Rehabilitation, Karachi. The bid of the petitioners for Rs.50,000 being the highest was accepted by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan. The acceptance was conveyed to the petitioners by a letter, dated 3rd of March, 1958 from the Secretary, West Pakistan Industries Rehabilitation Board, Lahore. The petitioners had already deposited 1/4th of the auction price. It was directed that the possession of the property would be delivered to them after they had deposited the remaining 3/4th of the auction price. They were further required to rehabilitate the concern within one year of the date of possession failing which, it was intimated, the possession of the concern would he resumed by the department. The petitioners deposited the 3/4th of the bid amount viz. Rs.37,500 on 2nd of May, 1958.

3. On 5th of September, 1961, the petitioners sent an application to the Secretary, West Pakistan Industries Rehabilitation Board praying that the concern purchased by them in auction be transferred to Mian Muhammad Bashir and Abdur Rashid, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as the factory was in a dilapidated condition and on account of their financial stringency they were not in a position to rehabilitate the same and, therefore, they after having received the whole of the sale price from the respondents had given them the possession thereof. This application was accompanied by an agreement on a stamped paper. It was signed by all the parties. The Secretary summoned the parties and got their statements recorded in which they reiterated the contents of the agreement. The agreement of surrender by the petitioners in favour of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was accepted by the Rehabilitation Commissioner and the acceptance was conveyed by the Secretary of the Board vide letter, dated 28th of September, 1961. Ultimately in pursuance of an order passed by the Chief Settlement Commissioner on 15th of February, 1963, permanent transfer deed of the concern was issued in favour of the respondents on 16th of February, 1953 by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (Industries).

4. About ten years later, the petitioners filed an application on 30th of January, 1973 before the Chief Settlement Commissioner praying that the P.T.D., dated 16th of February, 1963 issued in respect of the concern in favour of the respondents be cancelled and instead a title deed for the same be issued in their names. They alleged that since they had deposited the entire auction price, they were entitled to the grant of transfer deed and the deed of association on the basis of which the P.T.D. had been granted to the respondents was fake and forged. According to them, they had associated the respondents for helping them in obtaining the possession of the concern from the department. The application was opposed by the respondents. It was heard by the Settlement Commissioner (Industries) who vide his detailed order, dated 10th of May, 1976 finding it without any merit dismissed the same

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In view of the written agreement executed by the parties and subsequently their statements in which they admitted the terms of the agreement, it is evident that the petitioners surrendered their rights in the concern in favour of the respondents on receipt of the full auction price paid by them earlier. On the acceptance by the Rehabilitation Commissioner, the surrender operated as a complete effacement of the petitioners from the record and their substitution by the respondents for the purpose of transfer of proprietary rights in the concern. Their acquiescence in the above surrender for almost a decade which is undoubtedly a very long period, loudly recoils on the veracity of the claim agitated by them in their application filed on 30th of January, 1973 before the Chief Settlement Commissioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has pressed into service two grounds in order to obtain cancellation of the P.T.D. issued in favour of the respondents; firstly that since the agreement of surrender was not registered, it could not be relied upon and secondly, that the transfer of proprietary rights after confirmation of the sale could be effected by the execution of a sale-deed and not by the issuance of P.T.D. at has been done in this case. Both these grounds have no substance. At the time of execution of the agreement of surrender, although the petitioners had deposited the auction price, yet they had not been granted proprietary rights in as much as no deed of transfer had been issued in their favour. Their right to acquire proprietary rights was to mature on fulfilment of the condition of auction which required them to rehabilitate the concern within one year of the date of possession. Since on account of shortage of funds they were unable to fulfil this condition, they surrendered their right to acquire title to the concern in favour of the respondents. Therefore, the agreement did not constitute as a sale-deed of the concern and it did not require registration. So far as the second ground is concerned, paragraph 7 of the instructions relied upon by the petitioners runs as under:-

"Sales should be confirmed by the Rehabilitation Commissioner concerned and the sale-deed should be executed by the Custodian concerned till such time a Settlement Commissioner is appointed."

7. The above paragraph envisaged the execution of a sale-deed by the Custodian only. It did not require the Settlement Commissioner also to execute a sale-deed. The transfer of proprietary rights by the Settlement Authorities was governed by the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 and the rules and instructions issued there under. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to refer to any such rule of instruction which made it obligatory on the Settlement Commissioner to grant proprietary rights by a sale-deed only and not by a Permanent Transfer Deed. Moreover, the petitioners having been substituted by the respondents ceased to have any locus standi to impugn the manner in which the proprietary rights in the industrial concern were granted to the respondents.

8. For the foregoing reasons, I find no substance, in this writ petition and dismiss the same. The parties are however, left to bear their own costs.

A.A. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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