MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN vs MUHAMMAD SHARIF
This matter arises from a dispute regarding 94 kanals and 15 marlas of agricultural land situated at Ahmadpur East, District Bahawalpur, originally owned by a Hindu evacuee. The petitioner claimed possession through a derivative mortgage, while the respondents received an allotment from the Chairman of the Allotment Committee of the Evacuee Property on 22-6-1964. The petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction, which was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, leading to unsuccessful appeals before the District Judge and the High Court. The core legal questions related to whether a mortgagee of evacuee property acquires a vested right to ownership and the legal consequences of failing to disclose possession under rehabilitation laws. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, as a mortgagee, was only entitled to have a charge created in his favour and acquired no vested right in the evacuee land, particularly after failing to disclose his possession under the relevant statute. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts and the High Court.
- Does a mortgagee of evacuee property acquire a vested right of ownership in the mortgaged land?
- What is the effect of failing to disclose possession of evacuee property to the Rehabilitation Authorities under Section 3 of Act XII of 1957?
- Is a mortgagee of evacuee property entitled to anything more than a charge created in their favour?
- Section 3, Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act 1957
- Section 14-A, Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme
ORDER
1. G. SAFDAR SHAH, J.--The dispute in this case relates to 94 kanals and 15 marlas of agricultural land situate at Ahmadpur East, District Bahawalpur. The land was originally owned by one Madan Gopal.
2. Who mortgaged the same to one Chhotu Mal sometime in the year 1900. The case of the petitioner is that Chhotu Mal in turn mortgaged the said land with Hakim and Luqman, the predecessor-in- interest of the petitioner, and ever since then they have remained in possession of it. On 22-6-1964 however, the Chairman of the Allotment Committee of the Evacuee Property, allotted the same to the respondents although according to the petitioner the land in question had never been treated as evacuee property. The petitioner, therefore, filed a suit against the respondents in the Court of the Civil Judge, Ahmadpur East for declaration as well as permanent injunction, but vide order dated 15-10-1968, the learned Civil Judge returned the plaint for want of jurisdiction. Against the said order, the petitioner went in appeal to the Court of the District Judge, and a learned Additional District Judge, who beard the appeal dismissed the same vide his order dated 26-1-1971. Finally the petitioner went in revision to the High Court but the same was dismissed vide the impugned judgment, dated 26-9-1979.
3. Now from the narration of these facts, it is clear that the land in dispute was evacuee property, as the Hindu owner of it namely, Madan Gopal, as well as Chhotu Mal with whom the same had been mortgaged first had left for India, whereas the only interest of the petitioner there was that he was the mortgaged of it. In this view of matter all that h was entitled to was to get in the land a charge created in his favour but the learned counsel concedes before us that the petitioner had not taken an step in that behalf. Under the circumstances, therefore the High Court rightly held that Muhammad Nawaz Khan and others v. Muhammad Amin and others (PLD 1969 Lah. 622), (which is a Full Bench ,judgment), was against the petitioner. In fact the learned counsel conceded this position, as he could not urge anything against the said finding of the High Court.
4. The other difficulty in the way of the petitioner is that in accordance with the requirement of section 3 Act XII of 1957, he was obliged to disclose to the Rehabilitation Authorities that he was in possession of the land in dispute. But again the learned counsel conceded that he had failed to d so. The Chairman of the Allotment Committee of the Evacuee Property, therefore, had rightly allotted the land in dispute to the respondents, as by virtue of the said section the land in dispute was deemed to be hidden evacuee property. Furthermore, after the amendment of section 14-A of the Land Settlement Act in the year 1964, the mortgaged was entitled only to a charge over the mortgaged land but the same did not give him any vested right therein as he could be evicted from it by the Settlement Authorities. In this behalf the High Court rightly relied on Muhammad Tufail v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and others (1970 SCMR 70).
5. It would thus be seen that the concurrent finding recorded against the petitioner by the two Courts below as well as the High Court seems to be proper, this petition therefore, fails and is dismissed.