Find a Lawyer

‑‑ Ss. 13, 2(c) & 15‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabi litation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10‑Premises a nationlised school ‑Ejectment application against such school‑Landlord and tenant, relationship of‑Documents/Certificates of Settlement Depart ment on record showing payment of land by school and not by any individual‑Raising of building on land by an individual‑Right of said individual to demand rent from school or file ejectment petition against school‑Held, transfer in particular circumstances of an individual case, could be deemed to be in taw in favour of owner an individual or a body ‑ Nevertheless factual con troversy raised by any individual that he also made some con tribution in raising building on land transferred to school, issue of ownership was to be dealt with in accordance with law declared in Rehmatullah v. Ali Muhammad and another 1983 S C M R 1064-- There being no doubt or need for further enquiry on question that transfer of land was made to school and such building also not being exclusively belonging to individual person, no relationship of land lord and tenant existed between school and individual person --Said person could not therefore be permitted to reagitate such question in civil Court but could get his interest in superstructure determined by civil Court for compensation in accordance with law.

(b) Supreme Court Rules, 1980‑

‑‑ O. XVI, r. 1‑‑Review by Supreme Court‑Improvement in position of party applying for review emerged after filing of review petition-- Such improvement, held, could not be given any importance being an afterthought‑Review petition dismissed.

(c) Supreme Court‑

‑ Judgment‑Ejectment against nationalized school‑Inconvenience ‑or hardship likely to be suffered by students‑Held : If Government was willing to remove any difficulty and make any‑adjustment in that behalf, but was hesitant to do so because of judgment of Supreme Court, Government would be at liberty to make any application to Supreme Court for clarification on question of adjustment to be specified in application which could be considered on its own merits.

C. R. P. No. 49‑R of 1984

Dr. Abdul Basit, Advocate Supreme Court and Hamid Aslam Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.

Khalid Iqbal Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao Muhammad Yousuf, Advocate on Record for Respondents.

C. M. P. Nos. 7 and 11‑R of 1985

Raja Muhammad Akram, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents

C. M. Ps. Nos. 8 and 10‑R of 1985

Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Tanveer Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 14th January, 1985.

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J

.‑All these matters arise out of the same appeal‑Civil Appeal No. 213 of 1978. They are, therefore, being disposed of together.

It is not necessary to reiterate all the facts. This judgment should be read in continuation of the judgment of the Court, dated 8‑ 0‑1984 in the said appeal. [Province of Punjab and another v. Mufti Abdul Ghani P L D 1985 S C 1]

Applicants in C. M. P. No. 7‑R of 1985 are the sons of Mufti Abdul Ghani appellant in the said appeal and claim that he had filed the eject ment petition only in the capacity of their attorney. The two applicants in C. M. P. No. 8‑R of 1985 are claiming to be : One, the Private Muhammadia Girls High School in its both capacities before and after nationalisation, distinct from the Nationalised Muhammadia School which has been impleaded separately; and two, the Anjuman of and for the former school. All these so‑called parties claiming to be interested in the disposal of 'he matter review proceedings pending in this Court through the Review Petition No. 49‑R of 1984 in the C. A. No. 213 of 1978, seeking themselves also the review and correction under section 12 (2), C. P. C. of the judg ment of this Court, dated 8‑10‑1984 through their allegedly appointed learned counsel Raja Muhammad Akram and Raja Muhammad Anwar respectively as also Mufti Abdul Ghani through his learned counsel Dr. A. Basit, have been heard at some length, after allowing the former so‑called interested parties to be impleaded in the matter pending in this Court.

The argument of the two learned counsel for the new so‑called parties who were also for sometime halfheartedly supported by Dr. Basit that the plot of land in question was transferred to the so‑called Anjuman, is con tradicted by the contents of the three petitions moved for reconsideration of our decision wherein it is clearly claimed without any hesitation that the transfer was to the School as an independent entity. The question whether it is the Nationalised School or the private school now in existence, is a separate matter altogether. This argument and improvement made during the arguments, therefore, is repelled.

The argument that the transfer would be deemed to be to the private school because the formal order in 1979 was passed in its favour is neither borne out from the said order of 1979, wherein the order of 1962 is shown as the source (main) order which was being implemented formally in 1979 ; nor by the other attending circumstances including the nationalisation of the original transferee School. There is also no force in the argument that the price was paid by Mufti Abdul Ghani in his private capacity and not by the transferee School. There are documents/certificates of the Settle ment Department on record showing payment by the transferee which ha rightly been held to be the School‑now existing as the nationalised School.

The argument of Raja Muhammad Akram and Raja Muhammad Anwar that their so‑called clients who claim to be interested parties were not heard in the earlier proceedings is of not much significance. We asked them whether they were not aware of the litigation being conducted by Mufti Abdul Ghani who is very close to all of them. Although they did not deny this but maintained meaningful silence on their part. Dr. Basit however, admitted that in the circumstances of the case it should not be assumed that they were not aware of it. All of them nevertheless argued that the litigation was regarding the ejectment only and not about the ownership of the land or the building ; their knowledge, therefore, would be inconsequential. This is not correct. The ownership in question was brought as a dispute before the learned Rent Controller in 1975 by the contesting respondents through a formal application which was also con tested by Mufti Abdul Ghani, vehemently asserting his own ownership of the property‑land and building, in reiteration of his claim in the ejectment application that he alone was the owner of this property as a part of another property exclusively owned by him. The volte face change in this behalf and otherwise in the position is an afterthought, to suit the disco very of realities as and when made. For example to cite only one relevant factor the Settlement Department attempted to prosecute Mufti Abdul Ghani for having forged the documents of transfer relating to a small property made in his favour so as to add therein the plots of land also. This happened after the institution of the ejectment application. The discovery of transfer documents in favour of the School (of 1962 and 1979) is also not less important. Reverting to the nature of litigation in this Court‑ wherein question of ownership was also involved, the detailed leave granting order dated 19‑10‑1978 does not leave any scope for doubt. All these so‑called new parties were aware of it. The fight even now is for the same interest which was fully and diligently represented and pursued by the main interested party‑Mufti Abdul Ghani. Further, all of them have also been now heard.

There is no justification for review in so far as the land is concerned. It belongs to the nationalised school. This finding in the facts of this case, it is clarified, is in no way of general application qua all nationalise schools. The facts and circumstances might differ. As observed in the judgment dated 8‑10‑1984 it can be otherwise also. A transfer, in particular circumstances of an individual case can be deemed to be in law in favour of the owner‑an individual or a body.

About the building also no justification has been made out for review. The improvement made in the position of Mufti Abdul Ghani and his sons vis‑a‑vis the building, emerged only after the filing of the Review Petition No. 49‑R of 1984 by Abdul Ghani. It cannot be given any importance as it is an afterthought. There was not an iota of assertion or eve an indication by Mufti Abdul Ghani till then (the memo. of review petition refers) that his sons had also any interest in the property, land or building or that promises of 99 years leases between different so‑called parties, are involved in the case. The alleged so‑called promises would not be with out the knowledge of Abdul Ghani and it cannot be said that this circum stance was not relevant to tile case he was projecting. It also appears to be an attempt to deprive the nationalised school of the due benefit of lb judgment of this Court. We accordingly repeal the same and reiterate the earlier decision on this point.

Regarding inconvenience or hardship likely to be suffered by the students of the private School now being run in .the property, safeguards have already been provided in the earlier judgment. However, we have assured Dr. A. Basit that if the Government, as asserted by him, is willing to remove any difficulty and make any adjustment in this behalf but is hesitant to do so because of the judgment of the Supreme Court, the then Government, would be at liberty to matte an application for clarification the question of adjustment to be specified in the application. It will considered on its own merits.

We find after bearing the learned counsel at some length that these petitions have no force and are accordingly dismissed.

M B. A. Petitions 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.