Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 75 of 1975, decided on 11th March, 1986.

(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 19th March, 1974 of The Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 1554/R of 1960.

‑‑‑S. 10‑‑Transfer of evacuee property‑‑Demarcation‑‑Non‑reading of evidence‑‑Two sets of documents with different versions‑‑Settlement Commissioner failing to examine documents relied upon by respondents‑ Lack of determinative finding in respect of such documents‑‑Case remanded for enquiry about genuineness of documents and locus standi of appellants with consent of parties.

Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A. Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.

Khalid Farooq, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.

Respondents Nos. 2 and 3: Ex parte.

Dates of hearing: l0ta and 11th March, 1986.

‑‑In this appeal the dispute is as to whether Malawa Ram Cotton Factory, sold by public auction on 24th December, 1956 and purchased by respondent Abdul Majid for Rs.2, 76, 000, comprised only Khasras Nos. 793 and 794 measuring 39 Kanals and 9 Marlas or included also Khasra No.792 measuring 60 Kanals and 17 Marlas. While examining the record we came across two sets of documents; one set supporting the appellants' case and the other the claim of the respondent.

The finding of the High Court .is that the record was tampered with and the petition was accepted principally or the ground that in the permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) issued in favour of respondent Abdul Majid on 21st of April, 1962, Khasra No. 792 was also included. The case of the appellants is that they are confirmed allottees of land comprised in Khasra No. 792, and, accordingly, they had laid a claim to this land on having come to know that this had been wrongly included in the Permanent Transfer Deed. Obviously, the High Court was justified in holding that there was tampering of the record but the documents on which the respondent has relied do not appear to have been examined by the Settlement Commissioner in his order. And all that we find from the order is that he has laid emphasis on the bid‑sheet and the inventory signed by the respondent for rejecting his claim. In the absence of any determinative finding with regard to the two sets of documents as to which set is genuine or fabricated, we would remand the case to the Notified Officer designated under the Evacuee and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties for holding an inquiry into the matter for reaching a conclusion as to whether the factory auctioned also comprised Khasra No. 792 alongwith the other two Khasra numbers. Further as it was contended by the counsel for the respondent before us that the appellants had been given alternate allotments, the Notified Officer should also go into this question so as to determine as to whether they have any locus standi to question the claim of the respondent. There will be no order as to costs.

M. I. 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.