Find a Lawyer

Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 89‑K to 95‑K of 1986, decided on 25th August, 1986.

(From the judgment of the Sind High Court, Sukkur, dated 11‑12‑1985 in Constitutional Petitions Nos. 74 to 78 and 80 and 81 of 1985)

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss.10 & 11‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 2‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine whether question of laches did not lose all its importance on account of High Court judgment in an earlier writ petition filed by petitioner side which was allowed and case was remanded and whether period prior thereto could again be considered as constituting laches in writ petition in which impugned order was passed.

--‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation (Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 2‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine question whether benefit obtained by petitioner by virtue of order passed by Settlement Commissioner whereby seven properties were ordered to be restored to him could be taken away by High Court in remand order or for that matter by authorised officer without any other party challenging said order of Settlement Commissioner.

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss. 10 t 11‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975), S. 2‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine question whether Deputy Settlement commissioner ever issued any notice for payment of reserve price as visualised by order of Settlement Commissioner restoring properties to petitioner and whether petitioner could be required to pay reserve price instead of auction price.

Maroof Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 25th August, 1986.

Leave to appeal has been sought in these seven petitions which have arisen out of similar orders passed by the Sind High Court on 11‑12‑1985; whereby the petitioners seven Constitutional petitions arising out of urban settlement matters, were dismissed, inter alia, on the ground of laches.

Kaniz Fatima petitioner in Civil Petition No. 9 of 1986 and her husband Kazi Abdul Hayee the petitioner in the remaining six petitions purchased 22 evacuee properties in Jacobabad in 1960‑62. According to the learned counsel the auction price was paid in most of these cases Not withstanding the same they were all to 1969 by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner during the years 1967 to 1969. Orders of resumption had not been placed on record. On petitioners representation to an Additional Settlement Commissioner a D.S.C. was directed to hold inquiry who submitted a report favourable to the petitioners. Despite that the same Additional Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated 19‑8‑1972 (not produced) approved the earlier orders of resumption and rejected the report of the D.S.C. However, on a review application the Additional Settlement Commissioner accepted the petitioners' plea to the extent that the properties which were yet available and pot transferred to other parties be restored to the petitioners on making full recovery of the auction price. Abdul Hayee petitioner made a further representation before the Settlement Commissioner who passed the following order on 11th October, 1978.

"Subject: Restoration of Transfer of Properties Nos. 787/3, Ward‑1, 936/ 1 & 2 Ward‑1, 84 / 1 Ward‑IV, 932 ward‑V, 667 Ward‑V, 202/18‑2 Ward‑VI and 569 Ward‑V, Jacobabad.

Please refer to your application, dated 18‑9‑1078, on the subject noted above.

As no demand notices were served upon the' transferee before the resumption of the properties, therefore, the transfer is restored in favour of the auction purchaser Qazi Abdul Hai, provided he pays the full reserve price within 30 days of the notice issued by the Deputy Settlement commissioner."

The above reproduced order, it appears, was not challenged before any other Settlement Authority. Two conclusions emerge from this order: One, that the property said to have been purchased by Mst. Kaniz Fatima was not one of the restored properties and secondly, that the petitioner‑side felt satisfied with the restoration of sever properties only. Despite that it appears that Abdul Hayee did not pay the reserve price within 30 days of the notice which was to be issued by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. It is not clear whether a notice was in fact ever issued by the said Officer. There were some other proceedings but the details thereof are not known to the learned counsel. Four years later Qazi Abdul Hayee petitioner wanted to re-agitate the matter before the Settlement Commissioner through a revision application, but the same was dismissed on 26‑4‑1982 as not maintainable. The petitioners then filed a writ petition in the High Court which was allowed and the case was remanded to the authorised officer for holding further inquiry. This order was passed by the High Court on 24‑8‑1983. The authorised officer passed orders against the petitioners on various grounds including the one that the properties in dispute had in the meanwhile been transferred to other persons and P.T.Ds. had been issued to them. The petitioners again filed a writ petition in the High Court which having been dismissed by the impugned judgments, they have now sought leave to appeal.

After hearing the learned counsel, we consider it a fit case for examination of the following points:

(1) Whether the question of laches did not lose all its importance on account of the High Court judgment, dated 24‑8‑1983 in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner‑side which was allowed and the case was remanded and whether the period prior thereto could again be considered as ‑constituting laches in the writ petition in which the impugned order, dated 17‑6‑1984 was passed:

(2) Whether the benefit obtained by Kazi Abdul Hayee in the order dated 11‑10‑1978 passed by the Settlement Commissioner whereby seven properties were ordered to be restored to him could be taken away by the High Court in the remand order or for that matter the authorised officer without any other party challenging the said order, dated 11‑10‑1978;

(3) Whether the Deputy Settlement Commissioner ever issued any notice for payment of the reserve price as visualised by the order, dated 11th October, 1978;

(4) Whether Abdul Hayee petitioner could be required to pay reserve price instead of the auction price; and,

(5) Lastly, any other related question.

We accordingly grant leave to appeal in Civil Petition Nos. 90‑K to 95‑K of 1986.

Security Rs.1,000 in each case.

Learned counsel for the petitioners at the end of the argument requested for withdrawal of C.P.No. 89 of 1986 filed by Kaniz Fatima. We allow the same and dismiss the said petition as withdrawn If the properties involved the seven cases have been transferred to other persons in the meanwhile, they shill be impleaded as parties. It is further directed that in this case the parties shall submit concise statements also.

M. Y. H. Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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