Mst. SAKINA (REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS) vs MUHAMMAD ZIA ULLAH KHAN, CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER ETC.S
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a Letters Patent Appeal regarding the transfer of a portion of property in Khanewal under settlement laws. The core legal question is whether a party whose claim form was rejected by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner and who failed to file an appeal or revision against that initial order can subsequently challenge the transfer proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having failed to challenge the initial rejection of her form, acquiesced in that order and could not later resile from that position or maintain a challenge against the transfer of the property. The key principle laid down is that failure to challenge an adverse initial order of a Deputy Settlement Commissioner through available statutory remedies constitutes acquiescence, precluding the aggrieved party from subsequently questioning the final transfer of the property.
- Does failure to appeal against the initial rejection of a claim form by a Deputy Settlement Commissioner amount to acquiescence?
- Can a party excluded from property transfer in initial proceedings challenge subsequent orders without appealing the original adverse order?
- Whether settlement authorities are justified in excluding a non-appealing claimant from property transfer.
1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.--The petitioner Mst. Sakina deceased, now represented by her legal heirs, has filed this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment dated 24th of March, 1977 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court at Lahore in dismissing her Letters Patent Appeal under clause (10) of the Letters Patent.
2. The dispute in this case relates to a portion of property No. 28, Block No. 2, Khanewal. On the 26th of November 1959, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Khanewal, on the basis of a report submitted to him by his Assistant Settlement Commissioner divided the house into two portions and transferred the same to Mohammad Siddique, a brother of the petitioner on his C. H. Form and Shabrati respondent No. 5, ignoring the N. C. H. Form filed by the petitioner. There was no appeal or revision against this order which evidently attained finality between the parties.
3. These orders gave rise to two appeals, one jointly filed by Mohammad Siddique and Shabrati and the other by Barkat respondent No. 4. On the 16th of March 1961, the Additional Settlement Commissioner upheld the finding that Mohammad Siddique though claimant was not proved to be in possession of any portion of the house. He further found that Mst. Sakina Bibi a non-claimant did not produce any rent clearance certificate. He therefore, excluded both of them from the transfer of the property and directed the issuance of the P. T. Os. In favour of Barkat and Shabrati, respondents Nos.4 and 5. On this Mst. Sakina petitioner and her brother Mohammad Siddique jointly filed a revision against the order. But this was dismissed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Multan Bahawalpur Division on the 13th of May, 1961. He was of the opinion that Mohammad Saddique was not able to substantiate his contention that he was in possession of the property. They then jointly filed a second revision against the order. But that too was dismissed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner with powers of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore, on the 7th of April, 1962. He observed that there was no proof on the record to show that Mohammad Siddique occupied any portion of the house for himself.
4. Moreover, the form filed by him appeared to have been tampered with in respect of the number of rooms for which he had applied. In so far as Mst. Sakina Bibi was concerned she did not file any appeal against the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who rejected her claim. The learned Chief Settlement Commissioner further remarked that "it is admitted by their counsel that Mst. Sakina Bibi is not in actual occupation of a room in any portion"
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It cannot be denied that in the first instance on the 26th of February, 1959, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had transferred a portion of the house to Mohammad Siddique and thereby she was altogether excluded from they transfer and her N. C. H. Form stood rejected. She did not go up in appeal or revision against this order. As such, she was held to have acquiesced in the order thus passed against her and withdraw from the transfer. She was therefore, not allowed to resile from that position. Quite apart from the fact that whether or not her learned counsel in the second revision was justified in making the admission to the effect that she was not in actual occupation of any room in the house, she had no legs to stand upon on the first count found against her. The Settlement Authorities were, therefore, justified in excluding her from the transfer. We, therefore, see no good reason to interfere. This petition has no force and is dismissed.
Cited by 1 case
- EJAZ AHMAD SIDDIQUI vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER ETC. 1982 CLC 997