IMDAD ALI vs GHULAM NABI AND OTHERS
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition regarding the transfer of a property in Rawalpindi. The petitioner, an occupant since 1948, sought transfer of the house but failed to apply under Scheme No. I. He later applied for condonation of delay under Scheme No. VIII, but the property was auctioned to the first respondent in 1968, and the auction was confirmed. The petitioner's subsequent appeals and revisions were dismissed due to the delay in filing and the finality of the auction. The core legal question was whether the property could be auctioned while the petitioner's application for condonation of delay was pending. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked substance, affirming that without the condonation of delay, the transfer form was not legally entertainable. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the petitioner was guilty of laches by failing to challenge the auction promptly. The principle laid down is that where an auction transaction has attained finality and a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) has been issued, the legality of the auction cannot be reopened, especially where the claimant failed to pursue their remedy diligently.
- Can a property be transferred to an occupant if the application for condonation of delay in filing the transfer form has not been granted?
- Does the issuance of a Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.) to an auction purchaser preclude the reopening of the auction's legality?
- Is a claimant who fails to challenge an auction for several years guilty of laches?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.- The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22nd of October, 1974, by which Writ Petition No, 502-R of 1972 was dismissed.
2. ' The dispute relates to the transfer of house No, T-599/IV situate in Mohallah Shah Chan Chiragh, Rawalpindi. Though the petitioner occupied it since 1948, he did not apply for its transfer under Scheme No I, but on 6th of February, 1968, he applied to the Chief Settlement Commissioner for the condonation of delay in filing the Form under Scheme No, VIII, which was sent to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, on 1st of April, 1969, for his report on the querry as to his entitlement and also whether this house was available for transfer. However, no report was sent till 1971 when, on inspection, the petitioner learnt that the house had been auctioned on 30th of October, 1968 to the first respondent ; and suction confirmed on 8th of November, 1968. He filed an appeal on 27th of September, 1971, before the Additional Settlement Commissioner which was dismissed by order dated 29th of December, 1971. Thereafter, he filed a revision before the Settlement Commissioner on 3rd of June, 1972, which too was dismissed by order dated 20th of June, 1972. The petitioner next challenged these orders in the High Court through the aforementioned writ petition but did not succeed.
3. ' The High Court held that as the delay was not condoned, the Form was not legally entertainable ; and as he was-guilty of laches in not questioning the auction this was also a formidable hurdle in his way and the Additional Settlement Commissioner rightly held that his appeal was belated which order was upheld in revision. Accordingly, the High Court held that as the P. T. D. Had been issued in favour of the auction-purchaser, the question as to the legality of the auction could not be reopened.
4. ' In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, dated 4th of September 1971, for submitting that till the submission of his report, on the querry raised by the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the house could not be disposed of by auction. This submission is without substance as without the condonation of delay the Form could not be regarded as properly presented and if he was keen for its transfer, he should not have slept over the matter and allowed the auction to proceed which transaction, having attained finality, could not be re-opened.
5. ' Accordingly, the petition has no substance and is hereby dismissed.