Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1983, decided on 2nd November, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment and order, dated 11‑1‑1978 passed in Writ Petition No. 250‑R of 1978) .

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine as to whether appellants had any entitlement to transfer of a residential unit of composite property in dispute.

‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 11‑‑Transfer of property‑‑Agreement of association arrived at between a claimant and a non‑claimant in possession of property in dispute who also submitted his N . C . H . Form‑‑Agreement submitted For transfer of property in favour of claimant and price of property also deducted from his compensation book‑‑Appellant failing to establish that they submitted any N.C.H. Form for transfer of residential portion in their possession‑‑Transfer of entire property made by Settlement Authority in favour of respondent/claimant‑‑Contention of appellant that in face of order of Settlement Authority treating residential portion as two independent units,. transfer of more than one unit to respondent claimant was illegal, as he was not entitled to more than one house, held, not tenable‑‑Conclusive finding existing on record that appellant had no locus standi to seek transfer of residential portion in their possession‑‑Transfer of entire property in favour of a claimant who had by an agreement of association acquired a right alongwith a non -claimant to transfer of property, held, unexceptionable being in consonance with spirit of Act.

Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.

Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Respondent 4: Ex parte.

Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1985.

‑Leave to appeal w‑is granted to examine as to whether the appellants had any entitlement to the transfer of a residential unit of composite property No. 624, situated in Ward No. 8‑H, Multan City.

The property in dispute consisted of three shops and two residential units on the back of the shops. Jeewan, the father of the appellants herein was in possession of one of the residential units. On 9th of December, 1959, it was alleged that he had sent by registered post his N.C.H. Form to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for the transfer of the residential portion in his possession, but as found by the Settlement Authorities this fact stood unsubstantiated. Umar, a non‑claimant, who was in possession of the other residential unit, submitted an N . C . H . Form to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for the transfer of the whole property and succeeded as the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his order, dated 18th of November, 1960, transferred it to him and his associate, a claimant, namely Umar Din son of Nabi Bakhsh. The evaluation price was deducted from the compensation‑ book of the claimant. The appellants filed an appeal on 12th of February, 1962, against this order, but the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner after inspection dismissed the appeal on the short ground that he was "extremely negligent in filing the appeal". However, he also held in the order that "the house has two 'exits' and a partition wall which converted the entire unit into two independent units".

The appellants thereupon went in. revision before the Settlement Commissioner who modified the order of 'the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, dated 18th of November, 1960, in terms that the transfer of one shop and one residential portion was maintained in favour of the respondent, and the shops and the other residential portion were ordered to be auctioned. As for the entitlement of the appellant, his finding was that they had not been able to substantiate that any N. C. H. Form was filed. This order was challenged by the respondent through a writ petition which was accepted by the High Court by order, dated 4th of March, 1966, and the case was remanded for fresh decision.

On remand, the Settlement Commissioner dismissed the revision petition as the appellants failed to appear, but on 21st of August, 1970, the ex parte order was set aside and the revision petition was restored to file. However, again on 29th of October, 1970, the latter order was recalled pursuant to a review application filed by the respondent. The appellants thereupon challenged this order in the High Court through a writ petition which was accepted on 27th of June, 1975, and the case was remanded to the Settlement Commissioner for disposing it of on merits. In turn, the Settlement Commissioner dismissed the revision petition on the grounds, inter alia, that the appellants had failed to establish that they had submitted any N. C. H. Form for the transfer of the residential portion in their possession. Again this order was impugned in the High Court but the writ petition was dismissed on 11th of January; 1978, eminently for the same reasons as given by the Settlement Commissioner.

From the departmental file it is apparent that an agreement of association was submitted on 28th of May, 1960, for the transfer of the property in favour of Umer Din son of Rooldu and Umer Din son of Nabi Bakhsh, a claimar. The price, as already stated, was also deducted from the compensation book of Umer Din son of Nabi Bakhsh. The transfer of the entire property was made in favour of Umer Din son of Rooldu and his associate who is a claimant. In this background, it is not possible to accept the contention of the appellants that in the face of the order of the Additional Settlement Commissioner treating the residential portion as two independent units, the transfer of more than one unit to the respondent was illegal, as he was not entitled to more than one house under the law.

Besides, in the context of the conclusive finding that the appellants had no locus standi to seek the transfer of the residential portion in their possession, all that they could claim was for an opportunity to bid if that portion was put to an auction. Such an expectation was uncertain as they had to compete with others. And, in any case, could not be of any consequence on the legal plane, and, C accordingly, could not be given any legal effect so to disturb the transfer of the entire property in favour of a claimant who had, by an agreement of association, acquired a right alongwith the non‑claimant to the transfer of the property which was so transferred by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. Such a transfer is in consonance with the spirit of the Act.

The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed, but with no order as to costs.

M.Y.H. Appeal 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.