Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 840 of 1981, decided on 13th November, 1985.

(On appeal from the judgment, dated 18‑3‑1981 of the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 25‑R of 1974/BWP).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 10‑‑Transfer of evacuee shop through negotia tions‑‑Whether to be disturbed after lapse of 17 years‑‑Evacuee shop transferred in favour of petitioner through negotiations‑‑Order impugned by original transferee‑‑Original transferee found disentitled by Settlement authority but shop put for disposal through open auction‑ Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider that petitioner having been found entitled to transfer of shop through negotiations in 1968 and original transferee ultimately, held, not entitled to its transfer, there appears no reason for not transferring it in favour of petitioner and maintaining orders passed in her favour 17 years ago.

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

M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.

Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos.2 to 3.

Date of hearing: 13th November, 1985.

‑In this case, the transfer of a shop bearing No.543 Machhli Bazar, Bahawalpur, is involved. This shop was put to open auction on 2‑3‑1960 and the highest bid for it was made by Bundoo, respondent No.l herein. The shop was resumed for variety of reasons and an order for its re‑auction was made but, it appears, that it could not be disposed of through re‑auction. On 24‑7‑1968, it appears that the petitioner herein, Mst. Khaliq Fatima, offered transfer of the shop for Rs.5,746 and the shop given to her through negotiations. Bundoo felt dissatisfied and filed an appeal which was rejected. He then filed a revision which, too, was dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner on 23‑7‑1973; hence he moved the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench; which accepted the writ petition vide its order, dated 18‑3‑1981 and set aside the orders of transfer in favour of the respondent on the basis of negotiations and remanded the case to the appropriate Settlement Authority to consider whether Bundoo was not entitled to the transfer of the shop in dispute and further directed that in case he was not so entitled, the shop in dispute be put to unrestricted open auction in, accordance with law. The aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner by this petition for leave (C.P.S.L.A No. 840/81) and Aslam Riaz Hussain, J., passed an order in Chambers on 13‑10‑1981 directing the proceedings on remand to continue and entitlement of respondent, Bundoo be determined as ordered by the High Court but further directed that in case Bundoo respondent was not found entitled to the transfer of the shop in question, the same shall not be sold by auction or otherwise till the disposal of this petition.

2. Accordingly, the Settlement Commissioner, Multan and Bahawalpur Division heard the case on remand. By his order, dated 30‑1‑1982, he found that Bundoo respondent had no case for transfer of the shop and, therefore, upheld the cancellation of the auction in his favour. He also found that the shop was liable to be disposed of through unrestricted auction. However, in deference to the stay order, dated 13‑10‑1981 passed by this Court, the disposal of the shop through auction was stayed till the decision of this petition.

3. It appears that Bundoo has not challenged this order of the Settlement Commissioner before the High Court and the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since Bundoo has been found not to be entitled to the transfer of the disputed shop, its transfer to the petitioner through negotiations could not be objected to.

4. We feel that there is some force in this submission. The petitioner was found entitled to the transfer of the shop through negotiations as long ago as 24‑7‑1968. In case Bundoo, the original transferee of the shop, 16, indeed, not entitled to the transfer of it, there appears no good reason for not transferring the shop in favour of the petitioner and maintaining the orders passed in his favour more than 17 years ago.

5. Leave is, accordingly, granted.

6. The security shall be furnished in the sum of Rs.2,500.

7. The appeal shall be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add additional documents, if any.

8. Interim order dated 13‑10‑1981 to continue meanwhile.

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.