NAWAB ALI AND Othbrss vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER AND Other
This matter arises from a petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the transfer of property units to respondent No. 2 under settlement laws. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners, who applied for transfer under Scheme No. VIII, acquired a valid claim to property units after an earlier transfer order was set aside and the case remanded. The Supreme Court held that the setting aside of the original transfer order and the reopening of the case were intended solely for the original applicants whose file was destroyed, and not to benefit subsequent applicants whose claims depended on property availability after Scheme No. I claims were satisfied. The Court affirmed that the petitioners lacked locus standi to challenge the transfers. The petition was dismissed in limine, laying down the principle that remand proceedings resulting from the destruction of records do not automatically open up property allotments for fresh claimants who failed to apply under the primary transfer schemes.
- Whether subsequent applicants under Scheme No. VIII have locus standi to challenge property transfers when an earlier transfer is reopened solely due to the destruction of the original file?
- Does an order setting aside a transfer and remanding a case for fresh disposal enure to the benefit of parties who did not apply under the primary transfer scheme?
- Can a party claim property availability under Scheme No. VIII before the rights of claimants under Scheme No. I are exhausted?
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAMH, J.-The facts of this case shortly stated are that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Lahore by his order dated 26th July 1960, divided property No. S-II-2-S-25, Landa Bazar, Lahore in many units and transferred them to various occupants. The original file was later on destroyed by some interested persons, and the Deputy Settlement Commis--sioner, therefore, finding it difficult to recover the transfer-price, made a recommendation to the Settlement Commissioner that the transfers of the various units of the property made by the order dated 26th July 1960, be set aside by the Settlement Commissioner in his sun motu revisional powers, and the property be ordered to be disposed of afresh, according to law. The Settlement Commissioner accepted this recommendation, and by the order dated 15th April 1970, remanded the case to the Deputy Settlement Commis--sioner for fresh disposal of the property. The Deputy Settlement Commis--sioner, on remand, transferred the disputed three units of the property to the petitioners, and one unit to the respondent No. 2 herein. The respondent No. 2 successfully challenged this order in revision before Settlement Commis--sioner who transferred all the four units to the respondent No. 2. The petitioners then challenged the order of the Settlement Commissioner before Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1092-R of 1974 which was dismissed on the ground that the petitioners had not applied for transfer of the disputed units of the property under Scheme No. 1, but they had sought transfer under the provisions of Scheme No. VIII and, therefore, their claim could only A considered as regards to the properties available after the rights of the claimant to the transfer under Scheme No. I are exhausted. Admittedly respondent No. 2 had been transferred all the four units earlier by the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 26th July 1960.
2. The High Court further noted that "the petitioners did not choose to apply under Scheme No. I and bad even never challenged the order of transfer in favour of respondent at the relevant time. They therefore had no locus standi to challenge this order now for they could apply and be considered only for the available properties".
3. In seeking special leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court, Qazi Iftikhar Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 15-4-1970 all the previous orders, including the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 26th July 1960 by which respondent No. 2 was transferred the disputed three units was set aside, and therefore the petitioners are entitled to the transfer of the property on the basis of their claim under Scheme No. VIII. This argument is fallacious because the order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 15-4-1970 was set aside for the reason that the original file had been destroyed and the reopening of the case was meant for the original applicants, and was not for the benefit of the applicants like the petitioners whose case depended on the availability of the property after the various claims of the applicants under Scheme No. I to the different units of the property were satisfied. No exception can therefore be taken with the view that prevailed with the learned Settlement Commissioner and also with the High Court.
4. There is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed In limine.