NIAMAT ALI vs THE DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND OTHERs
The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing his writ petition, which challenged the rejection of his claim for the transfer of a burnt-down evacuee shop site. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the transfer of the site under Settlement Scheme No. VIII read with Scheme No. VI after raising new construction post-fire, despite failing to establish prior possession or construction before the crucial date of 1961, and after the property had already been auctioned to a third party. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to establish his entitlement, as his construction was not raised before the crucial date, the property had already been disposed of by auction, and he had unauthorizedly occupied the site. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that the petitioner was rightly non-suited and the High Court's order was unexceptionable.
- Whether a claimant is entitled to the transfer of an evacuee site under Settlement Scheme No. VIII where construction was raised after the crucial date?
- Can an unauthorized occupant claim transfer of a site that has already been validly auctioned and disposed of?
- Whether the High Court's dismissal of a writ petition regarding the refusal of transfer of evacuee property warrants interference when the claimant lacks legal entitlement?
- Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 2nd April, 1975, by which Writ Petition No, 791 of 1974 was dismissed.
2. ' The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, Inayat Ali, filed a C. S. Form for the transfer of shop No, 718, Elgin Road, Saddar Bazar, Lahore Cantonment, on the basis of the possession of his son, of which Bata Shoe Company was a tenant. He failed to secure its transfer as the possession of his son was not established, It so happened that the shop was completely destroyed by fire on 27th of October, 1969, and it is the case of the petitioner that he raised a new construction on the site at his own cost. He, thereafter, submitted an N. C. S. Form on 31st October, 1969, and sought to establish by letter dated 8th January, 1970, that Bata Shoe Company had TM interest in the premises. By order dated 8th March, 1972, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner rejected the Form.
3. ' Aggrieved by it he filed an appeal and during its pendency the shop . Was auctioned on 11th April, 1973, for Rs, 17,000 in favour of respondent No, 4 and the bid was confirmed on the 17th April, 1973.
4. His appeal was treated as revision under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, and dismissed by the Settlement Commissioner. Against this order the petitioner filed the aforementioned writ petition and claimed the transfer of the site under Settlement Scheme No, VIII read with Scheme No, VI. The High Court held that as he did not submit his form under para. 9 (d) (i) of Scheme No, VIII, he was not entitled for the transfer of the site as the construction was not raised before the crucial date that is before 1961 ; and further, the property had been sold to respondent No, 1 before the removal of the restriction on 13th of August, 1973, in the reconstituted Scheme No, VIII and hence it was not available for transfer.
5. Before us the petitioner was not able to establish his entitlement to the transfer of the site ; and it further appears from the comments of the Settlement department that after the rejection of his form on 8th March, 1971, the litigation went up to the High Court but he failed and thereafter the shop was ordered to be auctioned. It was further stated in the comments that the petitioner had unauthorisedly occupied the site and raised a construction on it and as the site had been disposed of by auction it was not available for transfer. In the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner was rightly non-suited as he had no entitlement -for the transfer of the site. The order of the. High Court was therefore, unexceptionable.
6. ' The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.