HAMEED-UR-REHMAN through L.Rs, vs SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS and another
This matter concerns the status of property declared as evacuee trust property by the Evacuee Trust Property Board. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to retain the disputed property based on a concession granted for transfers made before the target date of June 30, 1968. The petitioners claimed a provisional transfer order (P.T.O.) was issued in 1960, asserting that this qualified them for the concession. The Supreme Court held that while prior case law establishes that a P.T.O. holder who has paid the total price before the target date is entitled to the concession, the petitioners failed to provide evidence of full payment by the deadline. Evidence indicated that dues remained unpaid after the target date. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the High Court's decision that the petitioners were not valid transferees and thus lacked standing to seek eviction of the respondent. The key principle laid down is that the benefit of a concession for evacuee trust property transfers is contingent upon the full payment of the property price before the specified cut-off date.
- Does the issuance of a provisional transfer order alone entitle a person to the concession for evacuee trust property if the full price was not paid before the target date?
- Is a person who has not been declared a valid transferee of evacuee trust property entitled to seek the eviction of an occupant from that property?
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- This judgment will dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.2747-L and 2748-L of 2002 as both these petitions arise out of the same judgment and the same facts.
2. It was through an order dated 3-1-1972 of the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board of the Government of Pakistan that the property in dispute was declared to the an evacuee trust property having stood in the name of Mahent Ganga Dass as Chella Mahent Duwarka Dass. As a matter of concession it had, however, been directed by the said Chairman that if any portion of the said property had been transferred by the Settlement Organization in favour of any entitled person before 30-6-1968 then the said transfer order shall not be disturbed in view of the above noticed declaration and the status of the property in question and such transfer will continue to stand.
3. The claim of the petitioners was that a provisional transfer order was issued in their favour before the target date i.e, in the year 1960 and the property in dispute stood transferred to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner well before the said date. Reliance was placed by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners on Tahir Ali v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1987 Kai, 290 and Assistant Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property v. Muhammad Ayub and others 2003 SCM R 841. Ratio of both these judgments is that if a provisional transfer order (P.T.O.) had been issued in the name of a person and such a person had also deposited the total price of the property provisionally transferred to him before the target date i.e,; 30-6-1968 then even if no P.T.D. Had been issued in the name of such a transferee he shall be deemed to have satisfied the conditions to qualify for the concession offered to the transferees of such property before 30-6-1968. The learned Advocate Supreme Court has not been able to indicate any proof produced before the Honourable High Court regarding the payment of the price of the property in question before 30-6-1968. To the contrary the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent No,4 has drawn our attention to a letter appearing at page 19 of Part-II of the paper book of C.P. No,2747-L of 2002, according to which some part of the dues had remained unpaid even on 6-7-1968 i.e, after the expiry of the target date.
4. In this view of the matter no exception could be taken to the impugned judgment of the learned High Court passed in Writ Petition No,16446 of 1998 and Civil Petition No,2747-L of 2002 is, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.
5. It had also rightly been held by the learned Judge in Chambers that since Hameed-ur-Rehman stood declared not to be the transferee of the property in question, therefore, his efforts to seek eviction of Abdul Rauf respondent from the said property were misconceived. The said conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge is also not open to any exception as a result whereof Civil Petition No,2748-L of 2002 is also dismissed and leave refused.