Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 572.of 1976, decided on 20th June, 1979.

(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 2‑4‑1976 passed in Writ Petition No. 882/R of 1973).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10‑‑Transfer of evacuee property‑‑Proceedings by Settlement Authorities in two channels, relating to same property‑ Transfer under Reservation Scheme and by auction sale‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider questions‑‑That if properties were different; whether respondents' side had any locus standi to challenge transfer to petitioner's predecessor‑in‑interest notwithstanding objections qua transfer by reservation; that if property was same, whether reservation made in favour of petitioner's predecessor‑in‑interest was unlawful and would not be given precedence over auction conducted subsequently and what was effect of late payment of price and whether late determination of price to be paid under reservation scheme would neutralise effect of delay‑‑Status quo however ordered subject to furnishing security to compensate respondents in case of ultimate failure of petitioner.

Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Malik Muhammad Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court and Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1, 6 and 8.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 5, 7, 9 to 12.

‑This petition calls in question the refusal by a learned Single Judge in the Lahore High Court to interfere with the appellate and revisional orders passed by Settlement Authorities under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabili tation) Act, 1958, whereby the property in dispute was held to have been rightly transferred as shop to Aziz‑ur‑Rehman, the predecessor -in‑interest of the respondents, with a further finding that the petitioner could not derive any benefit from the order of its reservation as plot, made in favour of his predecessor‑in‑interest.

It was the case of the petitioner that his predecessor‑in‑interest was successful in. getting the property in dispute reserved as a plot for purchase through negotiation, through an order passed by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on 20‑12‑1962; in consequence whereof the plot was transferred on payment of the requisite price and a P.T.D. was issued on 12‑6‑1970. On the other hand, the case from the respondents side was that in fact the property in dispute was a commercial unit and not a plot and that it was purchased by Aziz‑ur -Rehman in open auction on 25‑9‑1964 in pursuance of which P.T.D. was issued on 1‑11‑1965.

It appears that the properties belonged to different evacuee owners. They were given different property numbers. Different modes of their disposal were adopted by the Settlement Department. In view of ‑the above facts, it is not clear, how an inference has been drawn that the proceedings by the Settlement Authorities in two channels one conducted from 1962 to 1970 and the other in 1964‑1965, in fact related to the same property. If the properties are different, a question would arise whether the respondents side had any locus standi to challenge I the transfer to petitioner's predecessor‑in‑interest notwithstanding the objections qua transfer by "reservation". Even if it be assumed that the property is the same, further question would arise whether the reservation made in favour of the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioner in 1962 was unlawful and would not be given precedence over the auction conducted in 1964. Another question would also arise as to what is the effect of the late payment of the price by the' predecessor- in‑interest of the petitioner (nearly eight years after the reservation) and whether the late determination of the price to be paid under the reservation scheme would neutralise the effect if any, of delay. We grant leave for examination of these questions. Security Rs.1,000.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking an order for maintenance of status quo, states that several shops and a residential unit have been built by the petitioner on the plot in dispute. The respondent's case, it appears commercial unit which already has only been remodeled reconstructed. We asked the learned counsel that in case the petitioner ultimately fails and the respondents remain, out of possession for such a long time (since 10‑10‑1972 when the last order was passed in their favour) what would be the measure of compensating them because, otherwise, it would operate as injustice. He agreed that the petitioner can be asked‑ to furnish security to compensate the respondents in case of his ultimate failure at the rate of RS.1,000.per mensero. Learned counsel was then asked to seek instructions from his client who remained present during the hearing. After some discussion, he also agreed on this arrangement. We accordingly direct that status quo shall be maintained subject to the petitioner furnishing security in the sum of Rs.1,000 per mensem from 10‑10‑1972 till the decision of the appeal; in case he ultimately fails therein, to be paid as compensation to the respondents for use and occupation. The security to be furnished to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), Lahore High Court, Lahore, within two months.

M.I. 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.