Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition No. 1177 of 1980, decided on 10th November, 1985.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 4‑6‑1980 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 872 of 1975).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10‑‑Question arising whether property in dispute purchased by respondent through auction could be resumed and offered again for re‑auction‑‑Matter scrutinized by Settlement Commissioner who found resumption to be wholly unjustified and entire proceedings involving second auction /transfer of property illegal‑‑Order of Settlement Commissioner upheld by High Court‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
M. Asif Jan, Advocate Supreme Court with Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Masood Javed, Advocate Supreme Court with M. Aslam Ch., Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
Nemo for Respondent No. 2.
Date of hearing: 10th November, 1985.
The question that arose in this case was whether the property in dispute, which was purchased by respondent No. 1 through auction on 10‑8‑1960, could be resumed and offered again for re‑auction
2. The property was resumed from respondent No. 1 on the alleged ground that he had not paid the auction price. In the re‑auction, the property was purchased by Iftikhar Ahmad, petitioner. The respondent No. 1, therefore, challenged the re‑auction in his favour and when the whole matter was scrutinised by the learned Settlement Commissioner. He found the resumption to be wholly unjustified. This is evident from his order, dated 18‑7‑1975 wherein he observed:‑‑
"I find that this is one of the most serious cases of official malfesance. The 'house had already been transferred to the appellant through an auction held on 10‑8‑1960. He had paid the full price through his two compensation books as mentioned above on 12‑9‑1980. He had also been issued a P.T.O. but then the officials played a trick and showed the price as still due from the appellant and got the property re‑auctioned and transferred to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that notice had been issued to the appellant before the property was resumed but there are two points which have to be considered in this connection. First, there was absolutely no need to issue any notice to the appellant when he had already paid the full auction price, second, the P.T.O. had been issued and the auction had been confirmed by the proper authority. The only thing which the Department had to do was to issue him the P.T.D. Second, the notices issued to the appellant had never been served on him. I have seen the notices. There are three notices on the file. There is absolutely no endorsement to show that the service had been affected on the appellant. The entire proceedings involving the second auction in favour of the respondent and the transfer of the property to him, therefore, were void and illegal."
The writ petition filed by the petitioner against the above order of the Settlement Commissioner was dismissed and this petition for leave is directed against the said order.
3. In view of the clear findings recorded by the Settlement Commissioner, the High Court was fully justified in rejecting the petitioner's writ petition and we agree wholeheartedly with that decision.
This petition fails and is dismissed hereby.
M.I. Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer