Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 569/1977, decided on 18th July, 1979.

(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, dated 29th of June, 1977 in Writ Petition No. 901‑R of 1977).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)--S.2(2) Transfer of property‑‑Allegation of fraud committed b respondent‑‑Petitioner's revision petition before Settlement Authorities misplaced before final disposal‑‑Later, Settlement Authorities declining to take cognizance on ground that no regular petition before repeal of Settlement Laws had been filed‑‑Constitutional petition dismissed in limine‑‑Leave granted to consider plea that petitioner's revision was in fact pending at relevant time and there were other indications on record showing that deed of association in favour of respondent might be fabricated one.

Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

‑The dispute in this petition relates to House No.E‑1988, Wachhowali Bazar, Shah Alami Gate, Lahore. The petitioner who is an occupant of the house filed C.H. Form for its transfer in his favour and the same was transferred to him on 20th of November, 1963. A P.T.O. was issued to him. But the entire price for the house could not be paid as his compensation book did not contain the requisite amount. Thereafter he suffered from some mental ailment due, to which he had to remain in the Mental Hospital for treatment from 1964 to 1970. According to the petitioner, during the illness Muhammad Ashraf respondent prepared an agreement of association, dated 27th of February, 1964 and forged the petitioners signatures thereon. On the basis of this deed of association he obtained a P.T.O. for the transfer of the property in his own name in 1970. When the petitioner came to know of this‑, after his recovery from the mental ailment, he made an application to the D.S.C. repudiating the deed of association. The parties were summoned by the D.S.C. But he dismissed the application on 19‑9‑1972 on the ground that. he did not have the jurisdiction to hear any application against an order passed by another D.S.C. i.e. by an official of equal jurisdiction. In the meanwhile the respondent, on coming to know of these proceedings, got a P.T.D. issued in his favour. Muhammad Shaft petitioner filed a revision before the Settlement Commissioner (Urban), for the cancellation of the P.T.O and the P.T.D. issued in favour of the respondents. The latter sent the revision petition.to the D.S.C, for a report. The D.S.C. returned the revision petition stating that a similar application has already been dismissed by him on 19th of September 1972 for want of jurisdiction. The Settlement Commissioner again referred the matter back to the D S C, with the direction that he should make a thorough inquiry in the matter and submit a detailed report containing full facts of the case. The D . S . C . summoned both the parties and heard them at length. He submitted a report seeking guidance from the Settlement Commissioner, but it appears that the same did not reach the S.C. (Urban). In the meanwhile the Settlement Department was wound up by the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 with effect from 30th of June 1974. A letter, dated 10th of September, 1976 was addressed to Muhammad Shaft petitioner by the Office of the Settlement Commissioner, stating that as no regular petition before the repeal of Settlement Laws had been filed, no action can, therefore, be taken in his case. Feeling aggrieved Muhammad Shaft petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court which was dismissed in limine, vide the impugned order dated 29th June, 1977.

2. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that since his revision has been filed much earlier than the repeal of the Settlement Laws, it was still pending and was thus saved by section 2 of the Act. The learned Judge in' Chamber, however, disagreed and observed:

"I do not agree with the learned counsel that the cognizance was taken by the Settlement Commissioner and that this was a pending case under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons (Repealed) Act."

We have gone through the relevant provision and we feel that there is considerable force in the plea of petitioner's counsel that his revision was in fact pending at the relevant time. We also notice that there are other indications on the record showing that the deed of association in favour of the respondent might be a fabricated one, as alleged by the petitioner.

Leave is, therefore, ranted in this case. Security in the sum of Rs.500. The parties are permitted to file additional documents. Status quo shall continue.

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.