Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos. 7‑R, 8‑R and 9‑R of 1986 heard on 18th January, 1986.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the‑ Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 18‑12‑1985 passed in Writ Petition No. 22/11 of 1982).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Transfer of evacuee 'available property'‑‑Petitioner's application rejected on ground that property in question stood already transferred‑‑On revision, case remanded and on spot inspection it was found by Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties) that disputed property was in possession of another person who had constructed a Pacca house over it‑‑Petitioner's application form was accordingly rejected and his writ petition against that order also failed‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Plea raised that in circumstances Deputy Administrator (R.P.) should have proceeded to deal with case from stage where it was left by Settlement Authorities and Deputy Administrator exercising jurisdiction only under repealing Act, could deal with properties which were available for disposal and not properties which had already been disposed of‑‑Matter having been closed once for all no further investigation, held, could be made‑‑Impugned order not being open to interference, leave to appeal refused.

‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Connected writ petitions‑‑Disposal of‑‑Connected writ petitions concerning dispute over same property‑‑Main writ petition having been dismissed earlier, other petitions also dismissed‑‑Petitions for leave to appeal against that order being devoid of merits, dismissed.

Bashir A. Ansari, Senior Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Maulvi Sirajui Haq, Advocate Supreme Court with M.A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.

Date of hearing: 18th January, 1986.

The above‑mentioned three petitions relate to connected matter, and, therefore, shall be. disposed of by this consolidated order.

2. In Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal 7/R of 1986 the dispute relates to a building site bearing Khasra No. 8679/5203 measuring 6 Marlas situated in Rawalpindi City. The petitioner applied for its transfer as 'available property' in 1977 but the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties), Rawalpindi dismissed the application of the petitioner per order, dated 21‑8‑1978 as the property was 'not available' and P.T.O. having already been issued in favour of Miss Mumtaz predecessor‑in- interest of the contesting respondent who had purchased the said property from her. Revision petition was filed against the said order, dated 21‑8‑1978 before the Administrator (R . P. ), Rawalpindi who remanded the case per order, dated 28‑2‑1979 to the Deputy Administrator with the direction to demarcate Khasra No. 8678/5202 in the presence of the parties, and in case he found Khasra No. 8678/5202 to be actually situated in the Khasras, mentioned in the P.T.D. of Miss Mumtaz, he would be justified in rejecting the form of the petitioner. In pursuance of the said direction, the Deputy Administrator visited the spot and found that Khasra No. 8679‑83/5203 stood transferred to Miss Mumtaz according to the P.T.D. issued in her favour while Khasra No. 8678/5202 claimed by the petitioner, was in possession of Muhammad Siddique who had constructed a Pacca house over it, and after recording this finding, he rejected the application form of the petitioner, vide his order, dated 13‑4‑1981. The petitioner then invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court resulting in dismissal of his writ petition, vide the impugned order, dated 18‑12‑1985. .

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the circumstances of the case the Deputy Administrator should have ignored the P.T.D. and should have proceeded to deal with the case from the stage where it was left by the Settlement Authorities i.e., the Deputy Settlement Commissioner per order, dated 5‑11‑1968 and the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner per order, dated 10‑9‑1969 whereby Khasra No. 8679/5203 was termed as 'available property'. Therefore, it was contended that the Deputy Administrator could not set aside these orders as he was exercising jurisdiction only under the repealing Act and could deal with the properties which were 'available' for disposal and not the properties which have already been disposed of. In this connection the observation of the learned High Court Judge is quite weighty and we' consider that the matter was closed once for all and no further investigation could be made in the matter. The learned High Court Judge rightly dismissed the petition. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Petition dismissed.

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal 8/R of 1986 relates to ejectment proceedings launched against the petitioner. The learned Rent Controller, ordered eviction of the petitioner from the plot in dispute per order, dated 20‑9‑1982 and confirmed the eviction of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 267 of 1983 which was found to be connected with Writ Petition No.22/R of 1982. Question of failure on the part of the Deputy Administrator to transfer the property in favour of Ajab Khan petitioner was raised. Since main petition was dismissed already by the High Court, therefore, Writ Petitions Nos. 267 of 1983 and 266 of 1983 were also dismissed. Petitioner then filed Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal 3/R of 1986 seeking leave of this Court to appeal against the impugned judgment. We do not find any merit in the petition. Leave refused. Petition dismissed.

5. Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal 9/R of 1986 is also connected petition. We find no substance in this petition as well, which is, accordingly, dismissed.

M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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