Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 271 of 1975, decided on 15th July, 1979.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 17‑12‑1974, in L.P.A. No. 105 of 1974).

‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10‑‑Settlement Scheme No. VIII‑‑Transfer of property‑‑Composite property‑‑Dividing of shop transferred to petitioner and house portion ordered to be disposed of in accordance with relevant law‑‑House transferred to respondent on basis of his N.C.H. Form‑ Order impugned on ground that petitioner was not heard in connection with disposal of N . C . H . Form filed by respondent‑‑Petitioner being a claimant displaced person having already obtained a house as well as a commercial unit, held, was not entitled to get a second house‑‑Order of Settlement authorities being just and fair, was unexceptionable in circumstances‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Allah Bakhsh v. Nizam Din and 2 others 1975 S C M R 182 ref.

M. Maqbul Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 15th July, 1979.

The dispute in this case is about property bearing No. 64/C, situated in Hasilpur Mandi, District Bahawalpur. It is not necessary to go into the lengthy details of the stages through which this case passed and it will be sufficient for the purpose of the present order to state that in the earlier round of litigation which ended with the order of the learned Settlement Commissioner, dated 17‑2‑1973, the property was divided into two portions viz. a shop and a house. The shop part was given to Dr. Sadaqat Ullah petitioner and the other part viz. the house was directed to be disposed of in accordance with the law relevant on the subject. It was not given to the petitioner as he had already obtained another house, and the law on the subject being that a person could not be given more than one house. At that stage Abdul Majid, respondent, filed a Form (N.C.H.) under Settlement Scheme No. VIII to claim the house portion so bifurcated. His application was accepted and the house aforesaid was transferred to him by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 20‑6‑1973.

2. Dr. Sadaqat Ullah petitioner then filed a revision petition again claiming the transfer of that portion which earlier had been denied to him but without any success as the same was rejected by the learned Settlement Commissioner on 28‑12‑1973. It appears that the petitioner in the meantime had also moved the Central Government for the same purpose and submitted that the portion aforesaid be given to him under subsection (2) of section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act XXVIII of 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) in "public interest" for maintaining a private clinic therein. With reference to his aforesaid application he was informed by a communication by the Central Government on 18‑4‑1974 that the said portion could not be transferred to him under section 10(2) as the same was no longer available (having already been transferred to a displaced person viz. the respondent).

3. At that juncture the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing No. 1675‑R/74 but without any success as the same was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 16‑10‑1974. An Intra‑Court Appeal of the petitioner being L.P.A. No. 105/74 also met the same fate and was dismissed by a learned Division Bench of that Court on 17‑12‑1974.

4. The petitioner has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that his client was not heard in connection with the disposal of the form which had been filed by Abdul Majid respondent under Settlement Scheme No. VIII and as such the transfer of the house portion to the said respondent without hearing the petitioner was without lawful authority. For this purpose he relied on Allah Bakhsh v. Nizam Din and 2 others 1975 S C M R 182. The contention raised has no merit. It has already been mentioned above that the petitioner was duly heard in the earlier round of litigation which ended in the order of the learned Settlement Commissioner, dated 17‑2‑1973 whereby the property was divided into two portions out of which one portion as a shop was given to him and the other was directed to be disposed of in accordance with the relevant law as a house. In other words the entitlement of the petitioner with regard to the other portion of the property was rejected. In these circumstances when the said portion was transferred to the respondent on 20‑6‑1973 as a house it was not necessary to rehear the petitioner in that connection because his entitlement had already been finalized. It may be mentioned that the petitioner never challenged the order, dated 17‑2‑1973 whereby the extent of his eligibility had bi‑en fixed and he cannot extend the said eligibility by taking up the plea of the type under discussion. At this place it may be mentioned that the petitioner who is a claimant displaced person has already obtained a house as well as a commercial unit namely, a shop. It is well‑settled that under the law a claimant can get only one house and one shop. The petitioner, therefore, was not eligible to get a second house which was in the circumstances rightly transferred to the respondent.

6. When confronted with this situation the learned counsel submitted that he was claiming the house portion for the purpose of making the same as a part of his private clinic and had applied in that respect to the Central Government under section 10(2) of the Act and claimed its transfer in "public interest". He argued that in this context the Settlement Authorities and the Central Government acted without lawful authority in not giving preference to his need aforesaid as against the respondent. The short answer is that the Central Government rightly refused to entertain that request because in the meantime the property no longer remained available as it was transferred to respondent Abdul Majid who is also a displaced person (though non‑claimant) and who justifiably deserved to be accommodated in the portion in dispute where he had been putting up for a long time.

7. The above discussion will show that the orders of the Settlement Authorities in the circumstances appear to be quite just and fair. They have tried to settle two displaced persons in this property by dividing it into two units and their orders cannot be taken exception to on any count. Looked at from whatever angle neither in equity nor in law, the petitioner has any right to claim transfer of the house above mentioned at the cost of further displacing an already displaced person who has been settled therein.

8. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed.

M.I. Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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