Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No.S-51 of 1986, decided on 22nd January, 1987.

---Sched., para. 16-C---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199- Transfer of indivisible building by partition--Nothing on record to show that application allegedly filed by petitioners in 1963 for transfer of evacuee share under para.16-C of Sched. to Displaced Persons (Compensation and. Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 was ever agitated or any order thereon was passed by Settlement Authorities--Such property having already been transferred to several persons, no order could now be passed on basis of such application--Contention that transfer made in favour of one of respondents was without jurisdiction and contrary to provisions of Act also could not be examined at instance of petitioners who had no locus standi in respect of such transfer For contention that petitioners having purchased some more property in disputed building, they had acquired fresh cause of action to agitate matter, petitioners, held, could approach appropriate forum for seeking relief for partition of property- on basis of share now held by them.

Ahmed Yousuf All Rizvi for Appellants.

The petitioners have challenged the order of notified officer, dated 30th March, 1986 whereby he refused to partition the property bearing No. MR 3/3 known as Tajumal Motiram Building, Market Road, Karachi in which the petitioners originally had 3/8 share and now' claim to be owner of 7/8 share in the property as a result of purchase of the right of several persons who were transferred the property under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. It may be mentioned here that the petitioners approached the Settlement Authorities for the first time in the year 1962 for partition of the above property between the petitioners and the transferees under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 but the request was finally refused by order, dated 18-10-1972 and he was directed to have recourse to the civil Court for seeking appropriate relief. The petitioner did approach the civil Court and filed suit No.224/1985 but unfortunately the Civil Judge, took the view that the civil Court had no jurisdiction by order, dated 25-9-1983 and the petitioners were once again driven back to the Settlement Authorities in view of the observations made by the learned Civil Judge. The petitioners after the dismissal of the suit once again approached the Settlement Authorities for partition of the property and the Settlement Authorities have once again refused to partition the same on the ground that they have no jurisdiction in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners had applied for transfer of the property on the basis of more than 1/3 share in the property under paragraph 16-C of the Schedule to the Settlement Act (XXVIII of 1958) but the application has not yet been disposed of. According to the learned counsel this application was filed as late as 1963. Alternatively it is urged by the learned counsel that the petitioners having now purchased several other premises in the building transferred to various persons under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 has now become owner of 7/8 shares in the property, therefore, it gives them a new cause of action to agitate the matter afresh. In so far the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that the application allegedly filed by the petitioners in the year 1963 for transfer of the evacuee share under paragraph 16-C was ever agitated or any order thereon was passed by the relevant Settlement Authorities. On the contrary it is quite clear from the various impugned orders filed with the petitions that the alleged application filed by the petitioners in the year 1963 was never pressed before the Settlement Authorities and the property having already been transferred to several persons under the provisions of D.P. Act and the Scheme framed thereunder no order can be passed now on the basis of that application. Learned counsel also contended that the transfer made in favour of respondent No.2 is wholly without jurisdiction contrary to the provisions of D.P. Act as respondent No.2 has been transferred more than one share in the building. This contention too cannot be examined at the instance of the petitioner, who have no locus standi in so far the transfer made in favour c the respondent No.2 is concerned. The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that having purchased some more property, in the building which was transferred to several transferees, he has now acquired a fresh cause of action to agitate the matter. If it is so, it will be open to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum for seeking relief for partition of the property on the basis of share now held by the petitioners.

With these observations the petition is dismissed summarily.

S.Q./J-8/K. Petition 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.